# The blueprint for prosperity



## P@triot

An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


----------



## P@triot

And here is the tax blueprint for prosperity....

*"Why does this matter? There are myriad reasons. Successful people and businesses flee from states with harsh tax environments. They flock to states with benign, progrowth tax structures that allow them to save and invest. This is why a state like California, with its top income tax rate of 13.3%, saw a loss of more than $31.7 billion over 15 years. Texas, which taxes its residents at the very agreeable rate of zero, gained more than $22 billion over that same time period."*

Every Day Is Tax Day


----------



## P@triot

What an _exceptional_ blueprint for education....

*At this college, the tuition is nowhere near the $150,000 to $200,000 for a four-year degree that the elite top-tier universities are charging. At College of the Ozarks, tuition is free. That’s right. The school’s nearly 1,400 students don’t pay a dime in tuition during their time there.

So what’s the catch? All the college’s students—without exception—pay for their education by working 15 hours a week on campus. The jobs are plentiful because this school—just a few miles from Branson, a popular tourist destination—operates its own mill, a power plant, fire station, four-star restaurant and lodge, museum and dairy farm.

Some students from low-income homes also spend 12 weeks of summer on campus working to cover their room and board. Part of the students’ grade point average is determined by how they do on the job, and those who shirk their work duties are tossed out. The jobs range from campus security to cooking and cleaning hotel rooms, tending the hundreds of cattle, building new dorms and buildings, to operating the power plant.*

This College Takes Hard Work Seriously -- And Kids Want to Go There


----------



## P@triot

Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.

Jobs would be bountiful. With low taxes, people would have a lot of money in their pockets for their future and to spend on goods and services in the economy. With private foundations handling the social needs, governments could eliminate their crushing debts (despite the lower taxes). Most of all, it retains liberty for the American people. The blueprint is there. Ask yourself why anyone would oppose proven policies?


----------



## midcan5

When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.

Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!


----------



## P@triot

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!



From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.


----------



## Siete

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.


----------



## initforme

Texas is an ugly place to live...terrible....but I do like the tax rate.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Rottweiler said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



What did you say in your comments introducing the video?


----------



## Siete

The Congressional Budget Office predicts a continuation of the slow decrease from a high of 47 million in 2012 to 43 million in 2017 to 35 million in 2022.

The number of Americans receiving food stamps peaked in December 2012, when a record 47.78 million people got benefits ranging from $194 a month for one person to $1,169 for a household of eight.

Thirty-eight states saw a decline in food stamp participation in February 2015 compared with the same month last year. The largest declines were in Maine, Wyoming and Massachusetts, all of which saw double-digit reductions in the number of people receiving food stamps.

Maine saw a 14.5% decrease.

Maine is one of 15 states that have re-instituted a limit on food stamps for childless adults. The limit, which was imposed by the federal government during 1996 changes to welfare law, was lifted during the recession for states that had high unemployment. It allows unemployed adults to receive benefits for up to three months in a 36-month period.

Rosenbaum says the limit will contribute to the decline in people receiving food stamps. By next year, she says, 1 million adults ranging in age from 18 to 49 will lose their food stamps.


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.



Food stamps are the highest in U.S. history. Stop making stuff up out of desperation.


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> The Congressional Budget Office predicts a continuation of the slow decrease from a high of 47 million in 2012 to 43 million in 2017 to 35 million in 2022.



Yeah...and liberals have been "predicting" that guns would be outlawed this year for over 30 year now. How is that working out? You can deal in "predictions" all you'd like. I prefer to deal in _reality_.


----------



## P@triot

More indisputable evidence that conservative policy generates prosperity while liberal policy generates poverty and collapse.

With Income Tax Eliminated, $85 Million Flows Into Kansas


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

initforme said:


> Texas is an ugly place to live...terrible....but I do like the tax rate.



  Yeah....I was thinking the same thing as I look out over the sixth fairway and watch the ducks swimming around in one of the ponds in my paid for home in one of the top master planned communities in the country.
    It's a real bitch,for your own sake please stay away.


----------



## g5000

Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!



> Still, the claim that Maine welfare reform has led to a “nearly 80% reduction in welfare” isn’t true. It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps — who made up about 5% of all food stamp recipients before the reform took effect.
> 
> So, *a claim making its way around the blogosphere that Maine has seen an 80% reduction in welfare recipients is false*.


----------



## g5000

All but 2 Maine counties have seen average incomes drop since 2000


----------



## g5000

Maine residents' income grew slightly in 2015 - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram



> Mainers’ income grew sluggishly in 2015, lagging both the national average and most of the states in the region.





> Income growth in Maine was *strongest in health care and social assistance*, contributing .29 percentage points of the total growth.


----------



## BluesLegend

But but but...what about my free government stuff?


----------



## P@triot

Another success story from the Maine work requirements....

Welfare Time Limits Pushed Woman to Pull Herself Out of Poverty


----------



## P@triot

And here is the blueprint functioning flawlessly yet again. The official liberal (false) narrative will attempt to convince you that this doesn't happen. Yet all across America, this happens every single day. Just imagine if we could restore Constitutional governmet and restore the over $1 trillion in waste to the American people...

Kentucky Businessman Buys Out Closing Kmart — and Donates Everything to Charity


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> I prefer to deal in _reality_.



Romney has it locked up!

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message

Five reasons why its president romney

Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way

Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem…. 

You ain’t one of them.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to deal in _reality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has it locked up!
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message
> 
> Five reasons why its president romney
> 
> Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….
> 
> You ain’t one of them.
Click to expand...

Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.


----------



## candycorn

About the subject of the OP:

From George Mitchell to William Cohen to Susan Collins to Olympia Snowe to their proportional diffusing of EVs every 4 years, Maine is probably one of the most purple states in the union judging by their voting; precisely the anti-thesis to every right wing nut job who posts here.

Sad really.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to deal in _reality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has it locked up!
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message
> 
> Five reasons why its president romney
> 
> Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….
> 
> You ain’t one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

332-206
Poodle meet reality.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Poodle meet reality.


It's amazing what voter fraud can do for the Dumbocrat Party, eh Cornhole?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to deal in _reality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has it locked up!
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message
> 
> Five reasons why its president romney
> 
> Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….
> 
> You ain’t one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I rest my case....


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….You ain’t one of them.



Indeed. Like the reality that "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

This reality is a little more real than you are capable of handling. Thus, _your_ reality isn't ome of them.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 332-206
> Poodle meet reality.
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing what voter fraud can do for the Dumbocrat Party, eh Cornhole?
Click to expand...


Oh boy….excuses are like assholes…everyone has one and they all stink.  You predicted a victory, you got a failure.  Why is it you can NEVER admit the truth.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….You ain’t one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Like the reality that "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> This reality is a little more real than you are capable of handling. Thus, _your_ reality isn't ome of them.
Click to expand...


As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to deal in _reality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has it locked up!
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message
> 
> Five reasons why its president romney
> 
> Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….
> 
> You ain’t one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case....
Click to expand...


You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….You ain’t one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Like the reality that "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> This reality is a little more real than you are capable of handling. Thus, _your_ reality isn't ome of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.
Click to expand...

I rest my case again. Cornhole can't accept the reality that the right clearly - in very plain English - belongs to the people.

By the way Cornhole...law enforcement officers don't belong to a "militia". So if you were to get your way (in which you admit you usurp not only the will of the people but also the U.S. Constitution by hoping Hilldabeast wins and stacks the Supreme Court with political activists), then by *law* police, FBI, ATF, US Mashalls, etc. will have to be disarmed. Good plan, _stupid_.

Yes folks....she really is that stupid.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to deal in _reality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has it locked up!
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message
> 
> Five reasons why its president romney
> 
> Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….
> 
> You ain’t one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
Click to expand...

And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.


----------



## LeftofLeft

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!




You honestly believe that the Republican base is any more partisan than the Democrat base and you use the term, "brainwash"?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has it locked up!
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum <—link works click here for message
> 
> Five reasons why its president romney
> 
> Phase 5 of converting the U.S. to full fledged communism is now under way
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….
> 
> You ain’t one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.

I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….You ain’t one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Like the reality that "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> This reality is a little more real than you are capable of handling. Thus, _your_ reality isn't ome of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case again. Cornhole can't accept the reality that the right clearly - in very plain English - belongs to the people.
> 
> By the way Cornhole...law enforcement officers don't belong to a "militia". So if you were to get your way (in which you admit you usurp not only the will of the people but also the U.S. Constitution by hoping Hilldabeast wins and stacks the Supreme Court with political activists), then by *law* police, FBI, ATF, US Mashalls, etc. will have to be disarmed. Good plan, _stupid_.
> 
> Yes folks....she really is that stupid.
Click to expand...


Sorry, the amendment says what it says.  I believe in the Constitution.  That you do not (or cannot read it) is your problem poodle.

332-206
Reality setting in?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….You ain’t one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Like the reality that "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> This reality is a little more real than you are capable of handling. Thus, _your_ reality isn't ome of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case again. Cornhole can't accept the reality that the right clearly - in very plain English - belongs to the people.
> 
> By the way Cornhole...law enforcement officers don't belong to a "militia". So if you were to get your way (in which you admit you usurp not only the will of the people but also the U.S. Constitution by hoping Hilldabeast wins and stacks the Supreme Court with political activists), then by *law* police, FBI, ATF, US Mashalls, etc. will have to be disarmed. Good plan, _stupid_.
> 
> Yes folks....she really is that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, the amendment says what it says.  I believe in the Constitution.  That you do not (or cannot read it) is your problem poodle.
> 
> 332-206
> Reality setting in?
Click to expand...

Nice false narrative as usual. You hate the Constitution - which is why you try to *lie* about it for your own agenda. I've _owned_ you on this my dear (and the best part is - you know it too).

By the way - if your *lies* about the U.S. Constitution were true - why are all of us armed to the teeth?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
Click to expand...

You certainly seem obsessed with the large stuff about me....


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Reality setting in?



Reality setting in yet Cornhole?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Reality setting in?



Reality setting in yet Cornhole?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything there was reality. It was what the media was reporting. Your inability to accept that is consistent with your inability to accept other realities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
Click to expand...

Isn't your ass sore _yet_?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Reality setting in?



Reality setting in yet Cornhole?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Reality setting in?



Reality setting in yet Cornhole?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Reality setting in?



Reality setting in yet Cornhole?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 332-206
> Reality setting in?



Reality setting in yet Cornhole?


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't your ass sore _yet_?
Click to expand...


Why would it be sore?  You’re proving what an ass you are in spades.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly seem obsessed with the large stuff about me....
Click to expand...


Your idiocy is the only remarkable thing about you….

And that you’ve abandoned your thread to make this a personal vendetta against me because I proved you to be a doofus yet again.

Fire away.  Nobody cares how dumb you are except you.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Cornhole...law enforcement officers don't belong to a "militia". So if you were to get your way (in which you admit you usurp not only the will of the people but also the U.S. Constitution by hoping Hilldabeast wins and stacks the Supreme Court with political activists), then by *law* police, FBI, ATF, US Mashalls, etc. will have to be disarmed. Good plan, _stupid_.
> 
> Yes folks....she really is that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the amendment says what it says.  I believe in the Constitution.  That you do not (or cannot read it) is your problem poodle.
Click to expand...


I noticed you avoided the part where I pointed out your absurd stupidity that every office of law enforcement (local police office, county sheriff's office, FBI field office, ATF, U.S. Marshals, etc.) are *not* part of a militia and thus will have to be disarmed if you were allowed to violate the U.S. Constitution as you desire. Don't you think that is incredibly stupid - even by _your_ normal level of insane stupidity?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly seem obsessed with the large stuff about me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is the only remarkable thing about you….
> 
> And that you’ve abandoned your thread to make this a personal vendetta against me because I proved you to be a doofus yet again.
> 
> Fire away.  Nobody cares how dumb you are except you.
Click to expand...

Don't cry Corny....I'll stop. The people don't take you seriously anyway since they see the nonsense you post.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people’s “reality” is more real than others it would seem….You ain’t one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Like the reality that "the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> This reality is a little more real than you are capable of handling. Thus, _your_ reality isn't ome of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as they are part of a well regulated militia…sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case again. Cornhole can't accept the reality that the right clearly - in very plain English - belongs to the people.
> 
> By the way Cornhole...law enforcement officers don't belong to a "militia". So if you were to get your way (in which you admit you usurp not only the will of the people but also the U.S. Constitution by hoping Hilldabeast wins and stacks the Supreme Court with political activists), then by *law* police, FBI, ATF, US Mashalls, etc. will have to be disarmed. Good plan, _stupid_.
> 
> Yes folks....she really is that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, the amendment says what it says.  I believe in the Constitution.  That you do not (or cannot read it) is your problem poodle.
> 
> 332-206
> Reality setting in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice false narrative as usual. You hate the Constitution - which is why you try to *lie* about it for your own agenda. I've _owned_ you on this my dear (and the best part is - you know it too).
> 
> By the way - if your *lies* about the U.S. Constitution were true - why are all of us armed to the teeth?
Click to expand...


I would assume that it is due to tobacco and methamphetamine, you have no real teeth left.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never had one to start with (other than the case of viagra that didn’t do much from what I heard)
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly seem obsessed with the large stuff about me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is the only remarkable thing about you….
> 
> And that you’ve abandoned your thread to make this a personal vendetta against me because I proved you to be a doofus yet again.
> 
> Fire away.  Nobody cares how dumb you are except you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't cry Corny....I'll stop. The people don't take you seriously anyway since they see the nonsense you post.
Click to expand...


Yet your last 30 posts have been addressed to me.

Nice to see that I own you.  Too bad you’re worthless.

#smh


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you follow me from thread to thread _begging_ me to bend you over. And the more I oblige you, the more you can't get enough. I've never seen a girl who likes to take it up the ass as much as you do Cornhole. You are one _freaky_ broad. Dumb as a box of rock. But freaky. At least you managed to get your name right. About the only thing you've managed to get right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don’t do microbiology.
> 
> I do enjoy pointing out your idiocy (as I’ve done here, twice).  It’s quite a large menu to draw from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly seem obsessed with the large stuff about me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy is the only remarkable thing about you….
> 
> And that you’ve abandoned your thread to make this a personal vendetta against me because I proved you to be a doofus yet again.
> 
> Fire away.  Nobody cares how dumb you are except you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't cry Corny....I'll stop. The people don't take you seriously anyway since they see the nonsense you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet your last 30 posts have been addressed to me.
> 
> Nice to see that I own you.  Too bad you’re worthless.
> 
> #smh
Click to expand...

That's because you engaged _me_. I simply responded. Are you off your meds again?


----------



## candycorn

31 now


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Repeal the 17th amendment, let states deal with their social issues, education, healthcare as they see fit. In that manner, if one system fails in one state, the others will be unaffected. States will learn from watching 50 different systems which systems are effective.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> 31 now


Libtard logic - keep engaging someone in debate, then wonder why they respond... 

You remind of those little girls in elementary school that taunt boys just to get their attention because they like them. It's cute, but also kind of weird considering you're a very old cougar. One would think you would have been able to better hone your skills by this point in your life. But...it's also understandable too given the circumstances. I once had a physician who gave me some very interesting insight (being a woman herself, she would obviously know). We were talking about politics and scandals with our politicians and she said to me "women are attracted to _power_". That's explains your obsessions with engaging me, then crying when I respond, then antagonizing me when I don't.

I've obliterated you in debate. Shown a masterful understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Am articulate and able to simplify the issue until you're backed into a corner with nothing logical left you can respond with. In short - you see _power_. And like an insect at night to a light, you're instantly drawn an unable to pull yourself away. What can I do?


----------



## P@triot

“Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” – Thomas Jefferson (March 4, 1801)


----------



## P@triot

History has unequivocally proven time and again that conservative policy creates prosperity and liberal policy creates poverty...



 

Best-run States Are Heavily Republican, Study Finds


----------



## P@triot

And as usual - everybody is missing the _real_ issue behind this story. The real issue here is that John Oliver - of his own free will, completely void of government coercion - went out and purchased over $15,000,0000 in debt for a mere $60,000. He then completely forgave all of that debt. A perfect, easy solution sans government. The right applauds and supports this. The left applauds and supports this. And the U.S. Constitution is not violated. Everybody is a winner. _This_ is how problems were intended to be solved in America. In the private sector by free will.


HBO Host John Oliver Buys and Forgives $15 Million Worth of People’s Unpaid Medical Debt


----------



## P@triot

Idiot liberal policy created the global economic crisis. A big salute to the Republican Congress for putting in the hours to correct it and having it all lined up in advance so that they can move quickly should Trump be elected...

"In a phrase,” he said, summarizing the Republican plan in prepared remarks obtained by The Daily Signal, “we need *economic growth for all and bank bailouts for none*.”

“It wasn’t deregulation that created the great financial crisis of 2008, it was mostly *dumb regulation by the Washington elite*,” Hensarling told The Daily Signal on Monday before the speech. “And *there were none dumber than those compelling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan money to people for homes they couldn’t afford to keep*.”

Republicans Unveil Dodd-Frank Fix


----------



## P@triot

Prime example here of how the U.S. was intended to function. Here is an *individual*, of their own *free-will*, funding the R&D of something that interests them. It's not being done by government because liberals are either too lazy (to donate their time and energy) or too cheap (to donate their money). It's being done in the private sector by a private investor. This is how _everything_ in the U.S. should be handled (outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government obviously) - energy, research, science, etc.

Welcome to Larry Page’s Secret Flying-Car Factories


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has unequivocally proven that conservative policy generates economic prosperity and liberal policy creates poverty (Cuba, Cambodia, _Detroit_).

3 Conservative Policies Allowed Indiana’s Economy to Flourish


----------



## P@triot

You would think this would be an obvious and simple issue to achieve universal bipartisan support for...

What 'America First' Trade Looks Like


----------



## P@triot

It never fails - liberal policy is designed to put people in poverty and keep them there (and it works), while conservative policy is designed to empower people and generate wealth (and it works)...

Work Requirements Decrease Food Stamp Recipient Numbers


----------



## P@triot

It's amazing that liberals still attempt all of their insane lies and propaganda when so much indisputable information is available thanks to technology:




 

It is this special form of liberal insanity that has driven jobs overseas where it is exponentially cheaper for corporations to conduct business. Even Canada (and pretty damn left-wing socialist nation) had an astounding 13% lower corporate tax rate than the U.S. And we damn near double Switzerland's tax rate.

Until we reject the failed ideology of liberalism, we will continue to wallow in a less than stellar economy and an unsustainable $19 trillion or more in national debt.


----------



## P@triot

We have the complete blueprint for prosperity - we just need to find a cure for the cancer that is the liberalism (which promotes ideology over reality)...

Trade Has Been a Huge Boon to Michigan's Manufacturing


----------



## P@triot

Poor policies like the Smoot-Hawley tariff prolonged the Great Depression...

Lessons on Free Trade From the Great Depression


----------



## P@triot

Conservatism doing what it does best - improving the economy, creating jobs, and providing people with dignity. A hand _up_ instead of a _handout_. We have the blueprint for prosperity. Everything we need history has already taught us and provided us with. All we need to do is figure out how to cure the cancer that is liberalism. It is dragging us down and it is _killing_ this country.

This Republican mayor has an incredibly simple idea to help the homeless. And it seems to be working.


----------



## P@triot

Liberals will actually whine about these success stories and attempt to make some bizarre case for why this is "cruel" (because they need as many people as possible on the government plantation for Democrat votes).

States Add Restrictions on Purchases With Welfare Dollars


----------



## initforme

As long as it forces cheapskate corporations to increase wages then im all for it.  12 bucks an hour is a laughable wage.  But you dont mention that. We MUST keep corporate greed in check somehow.


----------



## initforme

Too much corporate control will kill the middle class.  Lower corporate taxes thats fine.  But keep in mind that wages MUST increase then.  I fear you believe that more people working for 12 bucks an hour is great.   More people working for 20 bucks per hour is alot better.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> Too much corporate control will kill the middle class.  Lower corporate taxes thats fine.  But keep in mind that wages MUST increase then.  I fear you believe that more people working for 12 bucks an hour is great.   More people working for 20 bucks per hour is alot better.


The problem is - a whole lot less people work when it costs a business $20 per hour to pay them for unskilled labor. It's just a reality of basic economics.

If raising the minimum wage did _anything_ - it wouldn't have needed to be raised eight times just in my lifetime. When you raise minimum wage, one of two things must occurs. Either the company must lay off its employees _or_ it must raise their prices to cover the new labor costs. In one case, the minimum wage worker is out of a job so they are no further ahead. In the other case, everything is more expensive so the minimum wage worker is no further ahead.

Again - just _basic_ economics here.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> Too much corporate control will kill the middle class.


That is a misconception intentionally created by progressives. The beauty of the free market is that there is no "control". Talented people can auction their skills to the highest bidder. Companies will have to pay top dollar for quality people. Those that don't won't be in business for very long.


----------



## P@triot

For those few progressives left that haven't figured out why Barack Obama is the _only_ president in U.S. history to not have at least one year of 3% GDP growth.

The flat-earth progressives who deny reality just can't bring themselves to accept what the rest of the world is accepting (including socialist nations). While consumers look for the best deals from businesses, businesses look for the best deals from governments. They aren't going to pay more for labor, taxes, and regulations than they have to anymore than you would pay more for a home, an automobile, and a tv than you have to. You shop around and you get the best deal. That's what businesses do as well. And that is why so many have taken their manufacturing operations, and the subsequent jobs, overseas. Idiotic progressive policies have driven them there. We need smart, sound, conservative economic policy to bring them back and keep them here.

Soaring Business Taxes Hurt America’s Ability to Compete


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity already. We know what works and what doesn't. History has proven it.

Marriage is one of the greatest protectors against child poverty. It is counterintuitive to have a welfare system that penalizes this institution.

According to a recently released study from the American Enterprise Institute, 82% of lower-middle-class families with young children face “marriage penalties” in the welfare system.

Couples who marry would lose all or some of their welfare benefits because their combined income is often greater than each of their independent incomes.

The study found that couples with young children are less likely to marry if they face a significant marriage penalty

Furthermore, nearly a third of Americans between the ages of 18 and 60 reported that they personally know someone who has chosen not to marry because of the marriage penalty.
Prime example of liberal policies destroying families. These people are avoiding marriage because liberal policies rewards them for avoiding it and punishes them for engaging in it.

Our Welfare System Shouldn't Penalize Marriage


----------



## P@triot

Another perfect example. Not only did the progressive state income tax not balance the budget despite an astounding $126 billion in revenue - but it has made spending explode as the progressives now believe the have a blank check at their disposal...

In 1991, Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker decried the state’s “orgies of spending,” and said his income tax proposal—which would include fiscal discipline—would balance the books.

Connecticut recently marked the 25th anniversary of the income tax, which has resulted in little to no spending restraint. 

State spending grew *71%* *faster than inflation* from 1991 to 2014 and 

Most of that went toward debt services payments and state employee benefits—which combined *grew 174% over the rate of inflation*, according to a report by the Yankee Institute for Public Policy, a Connecticut think tank.

“But many states lean on the revenue from an income tax will can discourage labor, drive down wages, *and drive business to relocate*.”
What Happened After Blue State Introduced an Income Tax


----------



## P@triot

What conservatives have known and said for _decades_. This is so simple - and progressives know it to. But they refuse to _admit_ it.

According to Paul Trussell, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, the number of people utilizing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in June 2016 was *down 4.7%* from the same month a year before, and the number of households using SNAP was *down 5.2%* year-over-year.

"The month of *June represents the biggest YOY decline* in persons and households participating in SNAP in the program's history," Trussell wrote in a note to clients on Thursday.

*The primary driver, according to Trussell, is the reinstitution of work rules by states*. During the financial crisis, the federal government allowed states to waive requirements regarding employment for SNAP recipients as the unemployment rate soared.
The number of people on food stamps is plummeting at the fastest rate ever after the government made a key change


----------



## P@triot

Left-wing progressive policy doing what it _always_ does - collapsing economies and dragging everyone down into poverty and misery. There is near infinite evidence that government run collapses, private run excels, left-wing collapses, right-wing prospers. Just another example:

Venezuela’s Govt -Owned Oil Industry Collapsing. Socialist State Now Buying American Oil.


----------



## P@triot

Can only _imagine_ what all of the illegal immigrants that Dumbocrats encourage and facilitate are costing us...

Every Immigrant Without High School Degree Costs US $640,000


----------



## P@triot

History has proven time and again what works and what doesn't. Number three on this list is key. Not only does it generate growth and jobs but it such a dire basic necessity for humanity...

3. The price and availability of one of the most important production inputs—energy—will benefit from further liberalization of American and global energy markets.

A 12-Step Plan for Global Economic Freedom


----------



## P@triot

This is the special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives and once again proves that "green energy" is completely unsustainable.

Over $17,000 _per_ household just on the initial install cost?!? That's enough money to pay my energy bill until the day I die.

The salt water of the ocean is incredibly corrosive and makes operating such facilities difficult and expensive. Electricity is so comparatively cheap in most parts of the country that offshore wind isn’t generally necessary.

Offshore wind is so pricey that early investors in it, like Germany, plan to stop building new turbines to lower the costs of electricity and prop up its ailing power grid.

However, the average American’s electric bill has gone up 10 percent since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, due to regulations imposed by government officials and taxpayer support for green energy
US Offshore Wind Plant Costs $17,600 Per Home Powered


----------



## P@triot

So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. The Regan Administration oversaw one of the most astounding economic turnarounds in world history. He took an economy destroyed by Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats from 10.33% inflation to 4.08% inflation...


----------



## P@triot

So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. Barack Obama hasn't seen a single year of 3% or more GDP growth. Ronald Reagan's _average_ over 8 years was 3.4%...


----------



## P@triot

So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. The Regan Administration oversaw one of the most astounding economic turnarounds in world history. He took an economy destroyed by Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats and decreased unemployment by 2%...


----------



## P@triot

So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that Reagan "raised taxes". He lowered taxes and then lowered them some more - a 23% decrease in one three year span. We now only have a complete picture of the Reagan Administration and it's astounding success but we also have the Obama Administration to compare it to - an epic failure (higher taxes, additional $10 trillion in national debt, and not a single year of 3% GDP growth - the only president in U.S. history not to achieve that)...


----------



## P@triot

So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. The Regan Administration oversaw one of the most astounding economic turnarounds in world history. He took an economy destroyed by Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats and built one of the most robust, successful economies in U.S. history. And he ended his two terms as one of the most beloved presidents of all time...


----------



## owebo

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!


Says the brainwashed partisan democrat fascist.....


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



You're kidding, right?  

No, unfortunately, you aren't. 

America's Craziest Governor Goes Off the Rails


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. The Regan Administration oversaw one of the most astounding economic turnarounds in world history. He took an economy destroyed by Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats and built one of the most robust, successful economies in U.S. history. And he ended his two terms as one of the most beloved presidents of all time...



Um, 'most beloved" means he's the only Republican since Ike who wasn't voted out of office, left the economy in shambles or was forced to resign....  

Wow. Talk about your low expectations.  "Well, this guy's fuckups weren't obvious until AFTER he left office!"


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the idiotic progressive false narrative that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. The Regan Administration oversaw one of the most astounding economic turnarounds in world history. He took an economy destroyed by Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats and built one of the most robust, successful economies in U.S. history. And he ended his two terms as one of the most beloved presidents of all time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, 'most beloved" means he's the only Republican since Ike who wasn't voted out of office, left the economy in shambles or was forced to resign....
> 
> Wow. Talk about your low expectations.  "Well, this guy's fuckups weren't obvious until AFTER he left office!"
Click to expand...

68% approval rating at his peak....left with 63%. The numbers don't lie - progressives like you do.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Um, 'most beloved" means he's the only Republican since Ike who wasn't voted out of office, left the economy in shambles or was forced to resign....


Typical progressive projection. Let's see...Jimmy Carter (left the economy in shambles), Bill Clinton (impeached), Barack Obama (left the economy in shambles).

Quite a track record there Joey!


----------



## JoeB131

Right. Record stock market and 4.9% unemployment 8 years after the worst recession in a century... some "shambles".  

Clinton- left office with a 70% approval rating and most people thought impeachment was a face. Clinton didn't lose his job, but Newt lost his.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Right. Record stock market and 4.9% unemployment 8 years after the worst recession in a century... some "shambles".


Wow...your finally admitting that Ronald Reagan and his conservative policies were an astounding success? About damn time kitty...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Clinton- left office with a 70% approval rating and most people thought impeachment was a face.


Odd....isn't it? Progressives adored Bill Clinton for brutally sexually assaulting dozens of women but suddenly _feign_ "outrage" over Trump's language. Thank you for reminding all of us how disingenuous progressives are. And for reminding us how you animals have been waging a War on Women for _centuries_.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Wow...your finally admitting that Ronald Reagan and his conservative policies were an astounding success? About damn time kitty...



Um, no, that is the current situation.  Reagan, on the other hand, tripled the national debt and destroyed the middle class.  

Now, if you weren't just out of short pants, you'd know what a Middle Class looked like before Reagan destroyed it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Odd....isn't it? Progressives adored Bill Clinton for brutally sexually assaulting dozens of women but suddenly _feign_ "outrage" over Trump's language. Thank you for reminding all of us how disingenuous progressives are. And for reminding us how you animals have been waging a War on Women for _centuries_.



Except that Clinton didn't brutally assault anyone. The women he had sex with- the ones who were credible- all said they wanted to.  the ones who didn't had seriously crediblity problems. 

Juanita Brodderick- couldn't remember the date of her 'rape', or even the month. she continued to attend Clinton events afterwards, took an appointment from Clinton to a state board, and filed two affadavits under oath saying Clinton never touched her before she changed her story. 

Paula Jones- State troopers said she was giggly after her encounter with Clinton. she also described Clinton's male member as having a "distinguishing characteristic" his doctors and Monica Lewinsky said isn't there.  

Kathleen Willey- After her supposed groping, she kept on calling and mailing the White  House and Clinton begging for a job 

Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars investigating Clinton's sex life and came up with nothing. 

Now, yes, I do think that Clinton's behavior was actually kind of boorish. So do a lot of feminists. 

But then Feminists remember that he protected their right to choose, he signed the family and medical leave act, he promoted equal pay.  You know, stuff that was good for the 99.9999% of women who hadn't had a sexual relationship with him.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> View attachment 94825



Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?  

Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.


----------



## owebo

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
Click to expand...

You mean like how you liberals do this?


----------



## JoeB131

owebo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
Click to expand...


Not sure those guys are "liberals".  The definition of liberal isn't "anyone I dislike". 

If that's what i think it is, it is a conservative religious bunch of assholes throwing someone off a roof because they are gay. 

Homophobia, that's all on you conservatives.  Those Muslims are just doing what you WISH you could get away with. 

and the only reason why you pretend to care is that there's some oil underneath those Muslims the Koch Brothers want really bad.


----------



## owebo

JoeB131 said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure those guys are "liberals".  The definition of liberal isn't "anyone I dislike".
> 
> If that's what i think it is, it is a conservative religious bunch of assholes throwing someone off a roof because they are gay.
> 
> Homophobia, that's all on you conservatives.  Those Muslims are just doing what you WISH you could get away with.
> 
> and the only reason why you pretend to care is that there's some oil underneath those Muslims the Koch Brothers want really bad.
Click to expand...

Let melt me clarify what it is you support since your room temp IQ is limiting you...




 

And democrats created ISIS.....so....


----------



## JoeB131

owebo said:


> Let melt me clarify what it is you support since your room temp IQ is limiting you...



I explained my position pretty well. 

ISIS isn't killing gays because they are "liberal".  They are pretty fucking conservative. They believe that we should run our lives based on a book written 1500 years ago. You don't get more conservative than that. 

But the only reason why you are told by the Koch Brothers you should "care" about ISIS is that they are standing on top of a shitload of oil.  if there wasn't any oil beneath them, you wouldn't be told you had to care, and they woldn't be sending working class kids off to fight to get that oil for them.


----------



## owebo

JoeB131 said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let melt me clarify what it is you support since your room temp IQ is limiting you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained my position pretty well.
> 
> ISIS isn't killing gays because they are "liberal".  They are pretty fucking conservative. They believe that we should run our lives based on a book written 1500 years ago. You don't get more conservative than that.
> 
> But the only reason why you are told by the Koch Brothers you should "care" about ISIS is that they are standing on top of a shitload of oil.  if there wasn't any oil beneath them, you wouldn't be told you had to care, and they woldn't be sending working class kids off to fight to get that oil for them.
Click to expand...

Yes, you democrats celebrate Muslims....you can't run and hide from your hatred of women and gays....but the choice is yours to continue to support it by voting democrat....


----------



## Seawytch

owebo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
Click to expand...


By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.


----------



## dannyboys

Seawytch said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
Click to expand...

Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam. 
You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!


----------



## owebo

Seawytch said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
Click to expand...

If only you didn't love the Muslims who hate us.....


----------



## Seawytch

dannyboys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
> You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!
Click to expand...


That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? 

Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?


----------



## Seawytch

owebo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only you didn't love the Muslims who hate us.....
Click to expand...


Muslims don't hate "us". ISIS, cultists who don't follow Islam hate "us", Muslims don't. Good thing too because they outnumber "us" by a lot.


----------



## owebo

Seawytch said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
> You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal?
> 
> Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?
Click to expand...

I know you didn't like the answer.....I don't blame you.....


----------



## owebo

Seawytch said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94825
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only you didn't love the Muslims who hate us.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims don't hate "us". ISIS, cultists who don't follow Islam hate "us", Muslims don't. Good thing too because they outnumber "us" by a lot.
Click to expand...

Yes...your liberal Muslim friends just have a strange way of showing it right?


----------



## Seawytch

owebo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
> You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal?
> 
> Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you didn't like the answer.....I don't blame you.....
Click to expand...


I never said I didn't like the answer, I said that didn't answer my question. Obviously that's because you can't answer it. ISIS isn't liberal. ISIS is a cult, an offshoot. They do not represent Islam anymore than Westboro Baptist represents Christianity.


----------



## owebo

Seawytch said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
> You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal?
> 
> Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you didn't like the answer.....I don't blame you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I didn't like the answer, I said that didn't answer my question. Obviously that's because you can't answer it. ISIS isn't liberal. ISIS is a cult, an offshoot. They do not represent Islam anymore than Westboro Baptist represents Christianity.
Click to expand...

Yep....your fellow democrat Muslim friends.....


----------



## Seawytch

owebo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if bigots can't push around gay people, are any of us truly free?
> 
> Guy, here's the thing. The government is us.  Even the worst governments generally reflect the attitude of the people they represent.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how you liberals do this?
> 
> View attachment 94850
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only you didn't love the Muslims who hate us.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muslims don't hate "us". ISIS, cultists who don't follow Islam hate "us", Muslims don't. Good thing too because they outnumber "us" by a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...your liberal Muslim friends just have a strange way of showing it right?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 94861 View attachment 94862
Click to expand...


So one guy can speak for an entire religion? Fred Phelps would have been surprised to hear that.


----------



## Seawytch

owebo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal? Religious extremists are not known for their liberal views.
> 
> 
> 
> Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
> You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal?
> 
> Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you didn't like the answer.....I don't blame you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I didn't like the answer, I said that didn't answer my question. Obviously that's because you can't answer it. ISIS isn't liberal. ISIS is a cult, an offshoot. They do not represent Islam anymore than Westboro Baptist represents Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep....your fellow democrat Muslim friends.....
Click to expand...


What? Your response doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Are you having some sort of brain related event? Can we contact emergency services for you?


----------



## owebo

Seawytch said:


> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isis is 'known' for throwing gays off roofs and beheading anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.
> You'd last one minute in their hands asshole!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal?
> 
> Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you didn't like the answer.....I don't blame you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I didn't like the answer, I said that didn't answer my question. Obviously that's because you can't answer it. ISIS isn't liberal. ISIS is a cult, an offshoot. They do not represent Islam anymore than Westboro Baptist represents Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep....your fellow democrat Muslim friends.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Your response doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Are you having some sort of brain related event? Can we contact emergency services for you?
Click to expand...

I would be embarrassed about my party supporting radical muslim terrorists too...oh, wait....your party won't even let you say that.....


----------



## Seawytch

owebo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> owebo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. By what stretch of the imagination is ISIS liberal?
> 
> Do you believe you'd last longer "in their hands"?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you didn't like the answer.....I don't blame you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I didn't like the answer, I said that didn't answer my question. Obviously that's because you can't answer it. ISIS isn't liberal. ISIS is a cult, an offshoot. They do not represent Islam anymore than Westboro Baptist represents Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep....your fellow democrat Muslim friends.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Your response doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Are you having some sort of brain related event? Can we contact emergency services for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be embarrassed about my party supporting radical muslim terrorists too...oh, wait....your party won't even let you say that.....
Click to expand...


Ah, no need for EMS...the brain related event is permanent. Good to know.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> View attachment 95129



Here's the problem. You think in terms of winners and losers.  People die from toxic waste dumped by big corporations into their water table.  Well, they're just a bunch of "losers".  Big company takes their factory and moves it... Well, they're a winner. 

And then you wonder why more and more people vote Democrat every year.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> View attachment 95504



Again, when you sign up to go fight for the Oil Companies, I'll take you seriously.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131

Oh, Poodle, you can post all the propaganda you want, but even your own party has rejected this Plutocratic Crap when they n ominated Trump.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131




----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131




----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Wherever free market conservative policies are implemented, prosperity reigns. Wherever marxist progressive policies are implemented (like they were in Venezuela), poverty reigns.

It had been more than 20 years since a left-leaning government in New Zealand chose to eliminate government subsidies for farmers, and Hausman was surprised at what had transpired since.

But those who participated in this nation’s grand farming experiment hold it up as a valuable case study for policymakers worldwide.

Today, New Zealand’s farmers are some of the world’s most productive and innovative.

Removing government assistance completely, New Zealand officials say, freed farmers to produce what people really want, and to do so in an efficient way that could turn a profit.

Since the reforms, New Zealand farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, and developed new products, Clark says.

Additionally, productivity in agriculture has grown faster than the New Zealand economy as a whole.
New Zealand Farmers Thrive Without Government Subsidies


----------



## JoeB131

This is what farming without subsidies looks like, Poodle.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> This is what farming without subsidies looks like, Poodle.


Bwahahahahaha! Look at the "progressive" being regressive. I give real world, *current* example that is _indisputable_. It actually occurred and other nations have followed suit. Meanwhile, the "progressive" goes back to 1910 for a fake example (there is no link or context around that picture as usual). Pussy Cat....nobody from that era is even alive today. Not one single person. Stop being a regressive and join us in the 21st Century, won't you?

By the way...do you think those people *stole* from their employers like _you_ did? Probably not. It takes a serious dirt-bag to steal, uh pussy?


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Wherever free market conservative policies are implemented, prosperity reigns. Wherever marxist progressive policies are implemented (like they were in Venezuela), poverty reigns.
> 
> It had been more than 20 years since a left-leaning government in New Zealand chose to eliminate government subsidies for farmers, and Hausman was surprised at what had transpired since.
> 
> But those who participated in this nation’s grand farming experiment hold it up as a valuable case study for policymakers worldwide.
> 
> Today, New Zealand’s farmers are some of the world’s most productive and innovative.
> 
> Removing government assistance completely, New Zealand officials say, freed farmers to produce what people really want, and to do so in an efficient way that could turn a profit.
> 
> Since the reforms, New Zealand farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, and developed new products, Clark says.
> 
> Additionally, productivity in agriculture has grown faster than the New Zealand economy as a whole.
> New Zealand Farmers Thrive Without Government Subsidies


There is no denying this real-world, current example of success!!! This is why conservative policies end in prosperity and progressive policies end in poverty.


----------



## bendog

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!


Who can say Trump cannot emulate Maine's bat shit governor?  (-:


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Bwahahahahaha! Look at the "progressive" being regressive. I give real world, *current* example that is _indisputable_. It actually occurred and other nations have followed suit. Meanwhile, the "progressive" goes back to 1910 for a fake example (there is no link or context around that picture as usual). Pussy Cat....nobody from that era is even alive today. Not one single person. Stop being a regressive and join us in the 21st Century, won't you?
> 
> By the way...do you think those people *stole* from their employers like _you_ did? Probably not. It takes a serious dirt-bag to steal, uh pussy?



Uh, guy, you are the one who wants to use 1787 principles to run the government. 

The reality is, we provide abundant food, far more than New Fucking Zealand, because we have government subsidized farming.  But Cleetus and Billy Bob out in the Red States whine about dem der government types that keep them afloat.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahaha! Look at the "progressive" being regressive. I give real world, *current* example that is _indisputable_. It actually occurred and other nations have followed suit. Meanwhile, the "progressive" goes back to 1910 for a fake example (there is no link or context around that picture as usual). Pussy Cat....nobody from that era is even alive today. Not one single person. Stop being a regressive and join us in the 21st Century, won't you?
> 
> By the way...do you think those people *stole* from their employers like _you_ did? Probably not. It takes a serious dirt-bag to steal, uh pussy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, you are the one who wants to use 1787 principles to run the government.
> 
> The reality is, we provide abundant food, far more than New Fucking Zealand, because we have government subsidized farming.  But Cleetus and Billy Bob out in the Red States whine about dem der government types that keep them afloat.
Click to expand...

Dude...you got _owned_ with a link to a current, real-world example. Nobody cares about your whiny, uninformed opinion.


----------



## initforme

Patriot I assume you are for jobs that illegals do for 7 bucks per hour now being done by citizens for 21 bucks per hour.  Seems fair.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> Patriot I assume you are for jobs that illegals do for 7 bucks per hour now being done by citizens for 21 bucks per hour.  Seems fair.


What an _astoundingly_ ignorant statement. For starters, cheap labor does *not* justify tolerating criminal activity. Second, no manual labor will go from $7 per hour to $21 per hour. There are tons of Americans looking for work. Third, even if it _did_ cause those jobs to shoot up from $7 to $21 (and it won't)...so what? The market will bear what the market will bear.


----------



## initforme

Your utter hatred of working folk is Dooly noted.  I figured as such.   Why?


----------



## initforme

Worker productivity is tied to pay.  7 bucks per hour means little to no productivity.  20 bucks per hour equals higher productivity.  The best workers live by this rule.


----------



## initforme

As youy said so what?  I agree.  21 per hour is a barely survivable wage.   But a fair wage nonetheless.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> Your utter hatred of working folk is Dooly noted.  I figured as such.   Why?


For starters genius...that would be _duly_ noted. Not "dooly". 

Second - what are you talking about?!? I "hate working folks" because I don't support illegal aliens performing illegal labor?!?


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> *Worker productivity is tied to pay*.  7 bucks per hour means little to no productivity.  20 bucks per hour equals higher productivity.  The best workers live by this rule.


Uh...no it's not. At least not for anyone who isn't a lazy progressive. Normal people provide their top performance for the wage they agreed to work for - whether that is $7 per hour or $21 per hour.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> As youy said so what?  I agree.  21 per hour is a barely survivable wage.   But a fair wage nonetheless.


$7 an hour is also a "survivable" _and_ "fair" wage. The market will bear what the market will bear. If it's $7 per hour, so be it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Dude...you got _owned_ with a link to a current, real-world example. Nobody cares about your whiny, uninformed opinion.



Meh, not really.  No one cares about New Zealand, where almost no one lives.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Uh...no it's not. At least not for anyone who isn't a lazy progressive. Normal people provide their top performance for the wage they agreed to work for - whether that is $7 per hour or $21 per hour.



you can tell by statements like that Poodle has never worked a real job.


----------



## initforme

I would encourage no american citizens to apply for those jobs unless the pay isnt significantly higher than what illegals work for.  You on the other hand would wonder why no Americans are applying.  Then you would call them lazy.the best workers are ready to walk off the job at any time......for higher pay. NO 2 weeks notice.  Buy bye.  Oh, you need me today? Uh, buy bye.   Normal people don't work hard for 7 bucks an hour..   Those are called losers and  they haven't figured out they are being exploited.


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food stamps are the highest in U.S. history. Stop making stuff up out of desperation.
Click to expand...


Check facts and don't believe Trumps lies. Food stamp usage is down.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food stamps are the highest in U.S. history. Stop making stuff up out of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check facts and don't believe Trumps lies. Food stamp usage is down.
Click to expand...

I've checked the fact sweetie. I don't listen to Trump. I hate Trump. We reached a record number of people on food stamps under Barack Obama. That is a *fact* - and it is indisputable.


----------



## P@triot

initforme said:


> I would encourage no american citizens to apply for those jobs unless the pay isnt significantly higher than what illegals work for.  You on the other hand would wonder why no Americans are applying.  Then you would call them lazy.the best workers are ready to walk off the job at any time......for higher pay. NO 2 weeks notice.  Buy bye.  Oh, you need me today? Uh, buy bye.   Normal people don't work hard for 7 bucks an hour..   *Those are called losers* and  they haven't figured out they are being exploited.


Look at the idiotic and immature entitlement attitude. Someone is a "loser" for actually holding a job, earning their keep, and not mooching off of society. Spoken like a true kid in high school. I'm guessing sophomore. Am I right?

As far as the rest of your nonsense, if what you say is true, then that will in fact force salaries to go up. So what's the problem? The market will bear what the market will bear. If people are willing to work for $7 per hour, that's what the market will bear. If they won't, then business owners will have no choice but to raise the rate to attract the labor they need. If you weren't a sophomore in high school, this wouldn't be so difficult for you.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I've checked the fact sweetie. I don't listen to Trump. I hate Trump. We reached a record number of people on food stamps under Barack Obama. That is a *fact* - and it is indisputable.



Yes, Bush wrecked the economy pretty good... what's your point?  

Trump will make us miss Bush.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've checked the fact sweetie. I don't listen to Trump. I hate Trump. We reached a record number of people on food stamps under Barack Obama. That is a *fact* - and it is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Bush wrecked the economy pretty good... what's your point?
> 
> Trump will make us miss Bush.
Click to expand...

It didn't happen under Bush, nitwit. It happened under Obama. That is a *fact* - and it is indisputable. Even if your ignorant ass is to immature to deal with it.

By the way - have you been practicing saying *President Donald Trump*?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> It didn't happen under Bush, nitwit. It happened under Obama. That is a *fact* - and it is indisputable. Even if your ignorant ass is to immature to deal with it.



NOt really. The crash happened in 2008.  

Okay, you must be in your 20's if you don't remember that.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> View attachment 101191



Yes, you keep reading your Ayn Rand... and thinking we need to suck up more pollution so the rich can get richer. 

You see, this is why I know you are probably in your 20's.  You aren't old enough to remember the bad old days when if you lived in a big city, you couldn't see blue skies in the summer because the smog was so bad.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 101191
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep reading your Ayn Rand... and thinking we need to suck up more pollution so the rich can get richer.
> 
> You see, this is why I know you are probably in your 20's.  You aren't old enough to remember the bad old days when if you lived in a big city, you couldn't see blue skies in the summer because the smog was so bad.
Click to expand...

Ah yes...more libtard "logic". Everyone should lose their job and die from their inability to provide basic needs for themselves so that they can see "blue skies" when they die. 

See..._this_ is how I know you are an immature idealist. And by the way, as always, you are so far off on your prediction that it's actually comical.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Ah yes...more libtard "logic". Everyone should lose their job and die from their inability to provide basic needs for themselves so that they can see "blue skies" when they die.
> 
> See..._this_ is how I know you are an immature idealist. And by the way, as always, you are so far off on your prediction that it's actually comical.



No, we can have jobs AND Blue skies.  You see, what happened is back in those days, when we had smog covering major cities, people did something about it. They demanded that cars be made more clean, they demanded that industry stop filling the skies with smoke. 

Again, if you weren't like 20, you'd realize how bad things were before Government stepped in and DID something. 

the thing is, you keep pining for a past that actually, was kind of sucky and you probably wouldn't want to live in.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Barack Obama destroyed jobs with his unconstitutional "regulations". It's nice to see the Republicans already making plans to eliminate them...

Congressional Review Act May Help End Obama Regulations


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> You see, what happened is back in those days, when we had smog covering major cities, people did something about it. They demanded that cars be made more clean, they demanded that industry stop filling the skies with smoke.


Yep....and those demands were costly. You see, money doesn't just fall out of the sky. Regulations have real economic impact and that impact is a combination of higher costs to consumers and less jobs for workers.

You're too much of a simpleton to understand the complexities and subtle nuances of economics (simple as they are) so you'll just have to let the adults handle this. We've all heard your ideas of "utopia" and all we can do is laugh. Society has rejected your communism junior. Donald Trump is your president now. A real Supreme Court will be your Supreme Court now. You might as well give up on your failed pipe dream because all you can do about it as the point is cry about it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yep....and those demands were costly. You see, money doesn't just fall out of the sky. Regulations have real economic impact and that impact is a combination of higher costs to consumers and less jobs for workers.



We have more jobs today than we had then.... So, um, no.  (In fact, the Labor Participation rate in the 1970's was about what it is now. 63%)  

Now, you see, I like breathing clean air and drinking clean water.  I'm not sure why you don't. 

Here's the thing, if you were getting beaten by countries that practice you kind of Ayn Rand utopia, you might have a point.  We aren't. We are getting beaten by countries like Japan and Germany, that are more socialist than we are. 



P@triot said:


> You're too much of a simpleton to understand the complexities and subtle nuances of economics (simple as they are) so you'll just have to let the adults handle this. We've all heard your ideas of "utopia" and all we can do is laugh. Society has rejected your communism junior. Donald Trump is your president now. A real Supreme Court will be your Supreme Court now. You might as well give up on your failed pipe dream because all you can do about it as the point is cry about it.



Actually, Trump has nowhere to go but down.  

Here;s how its going t play out.  We'll have a recession in 2018.  Most of the economists are predicting one. WHen it's clear Trump has no idea how to handled that, the mid-terms will be brutal for you guys.  

Somewhere in there, the Republicans who hate Trump will start feeling frisky.  Establishment vs. Teabaggers, round 2. Total bloodbath on every level. But at that point, we'll have Dems in the Statehouses and govenrorships, and the 2020 Census will find a whole lot of minorities. 

All over for you Nazis at that point.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> We aren't. We are getting beaten by countries like Japan and Germany, that are more socialist than we are.


Both Japan and Germany have lower tax rates than we do, _stupid_. Oops. You just proved that progressivism is a failed ideology.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Both Japan and Germany have lower tax rates than we do, _stupid_. Oops. You just proved that progressivism is a failed ideology.



um, no, they don't.  But thanks for playing.  (YOu have to zoom the image, but Germany and Japan both have higher tax rates than the US).


----------



## P@triot

Every single time the government intervenes outside of their constitutional responsibility we get catastrophic failure. Every time the free market and foundations are used to achieve the progressive goals, we get resounding success.

The fact that progressives still want government to do it just proves that it's not about helping other with them. It's about *control*. They want to *control* _every_ facet of your life.

This Nonprofit Is Saving Kids—and Taxpayer Money


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Japan and Germany have lower tax rates than we do, _stupid_. Oops. You just proved that progressivism is a failed ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, no, they don't.  But thanks for playing.  (YOu have to zoom the image, but Germany and Japan both have higher tax rates than the US).
Click to expand...

You dumb nitwit. You might want to get tax rates based on 2016 instead of 1986. 

*The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations*

Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You dumb nitwit. You might want to get tax rates based on 2016 instead of 1986.
> 
> *The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations*



You didn't talk about "Corporate Tax Rates", Poodle. You said that Germany and Japan had lower tax rates than we did.  

Here are the effective corporate tax rates-  Note that Japan is higher and Germany is only slightly lower.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dumb nitwit. You might want to get tax rates based on 2016 instead of 1986.
> 
> *The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't talk about "Corporate Tax Rates", Poodle. You said that Germany and Japan had lower tax rates than we did.
> 
> Here are the effective corporate tax rates-  Note that Japan is higher and Germany is only slightly lower.
Click to expand...

We've been talking *corporate* the _entire_ time genius.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> We've been talking *corporate* the _entire_ time genius.



You didn't say "Corporate", you said "Tax rate".  

Not that it matters, because Japan even has a higher corporate tax rate.  

Now, if you were mature, you'd maybe say, "Hey, maybe we should have a tax system more like Germany, where corporate tax rates are lower and income taxes are higher, because that encourages growth."  

But I really don't hold you to that high of a standard, Poodle...  You'll just lie like you normally do.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Now, if you were mature, you'd maybe say, "Hey, maybe we should have a tax system more like Germany, where corporate tax rates are lower and income taxes are higher, because that encourages growth."


Now...if _you_ were mature - you'd move to Germany to experience the "utopia" you claim to love and admire so much. But the fact is, you're not looking for what works. You're looking *not to work*. You want to mooch off of society.

With Republicans owning the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 of the 50 states, those days _might_ be coming to an end Joey.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

We know what works and what doesn't. Rational people (i.e. conservatives) reject the failed progressive policies. Irrational people who place ideology above reality (i.e. progressives) continue to drag us all down with failed progressive policies...

Study: Americans Move to States With Less Burdensome Taxes


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know *exactly* what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."





Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know *exactly* what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...
> 
> "New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."



Poodle, you do realize that 1.3 million more residents in Texas are mostly dirt poor illegal aliens, right?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know *exactly* what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...
> 
> "New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle, you do realize that 1.3 million more residents in Texas are mostly dirt poor illegal aliens, right?
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! They don't count illegal aliens, poodle. And even that sad and desperate attempt doesn't account for the mass exodus from failed blue states.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha! They don't count illegal aliens, poodle. And even that sad and desperate attempt doesn't account for the mass exodus from failed blue states.



Uh, yeah, they probably do, Poodle. 

You do get that it's funny when we call you Poodle because you used to call yourself Rottweiler before you changed it when EVERYONE mocked you.


----------



## imawhosure

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know *exactly* what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...
> 
> "New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."
> 
> View attachment 116111
> 
> Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves



Why do you think leftists want Washington so large, and to be the number 1 tax collectors!

Do that, and you can NOT flee their taxing authority unless you leave the country.  The left may be socialists, but they are not stupid.  The more they can spread the taxing misery around through Washington, the less taxing pain you can alleviate by going to another state. 

Now ask this question with a very straight face----> if they changed; or enforced the law (depending upon your stance) and the 2020 election was held instead in 2022 after the census numbers rejiggered the electoral college votes for the states, how important would Illinois be?  How many would California lose? How many would the Deep South along with Texas gain?

In other words----> how much would the power in the political landscape shift away from those bastions of overtaxed liberalism on the coasts as citizens and businesses flee!

Conclusion---> should the Repubs play it correctly, (and there is no assurance they will) win in 18 which is probable by the numbers, and can squeak by in 2020, we may be waving bye-bye to the left as we now know it.  


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## JoeB131

imawhosure said:


> Conclusion---> should the Repubs play it correctly, (and there is no assurance they will) win in 18 which is probable by the numbers, and can squeak by in 2020, we may be waving bye-bye to the left as we now know it.



Here's how it's going to play out.  

All the dumb white trash who voted for Trump in the Rust Belt are going to realize those jobs aren't coming back, and they aren't going to vote Republican. 

Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.  

Meanwhile, all the knuckledraggers who got in in 2010 and 2014 and going to get swept out in 2018, and democrats will be drawing those districts.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> You do get that it's funny when we call you Poodle because you used to call yourself Rottweiler before you changed it when EVERYONE mocked you.


Who is "we"? You're literally the _only_ person who is that immature and it had *nothing* to do with why the user name was changed, poodle. It's kind of cute how you want to believe that you influence other people. That's a sure sign of a sad, lonely person.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


  

There literally aren't enough laughing emojis in the world for something that insanely stupid.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #305:


JoeB131 said:


> *Hillary will win by a landslide*.  Nobody who voted for Obama in 2012 is going to vote for one of your crazies next time, and a lot of White Suburban women who wouldn't vote for Obama just can't wait to vote for Hillary.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #252:


JoeB131 said:


> *President Hillary will make you guys MISS Obama*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #279:



JoeB131 said:


> *Republicans will nominate Jeb*, democrats will nominate Hillary.  *Hillary will win all the states Obama won, plus Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana*.


Holy shit is this one a special gem... 

You literally did not get ONE prediction correct. Hillary lost many of the states Obama won (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida), she lost Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and the Republicans didn't nominate Jeb Bush. You made 6 predictions and you were *0-for-6*. This is a glaring example of extremely ignorant you are.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #100:


JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing. Yes, people don't like Hillary. But *Trump scares the shit out of them*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #221:


JoeB131 said:


> Realistically, *I doubt anyone can beat HIllary at this point*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #34:


JoeB131 said:


> Fourth-  The poorest preformer of the three *is Bush, and that's going to be your nominee*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #87:


JoeB131 said:


> Uh, *HIllary will beat anyone you put up*. and when you guys are done with the Reality TV clowns, *Bush will be the only option you have*.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #305:
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary will win by a landslide*.  Nobody who voted for Obama in 2012 is going to vote for one of your crazies next time, and a lot of White Suburban women who wouldn't vote for Obama just can't wait to vote for Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


3 million votes is a landslide.  Even with the Russian Hackers helping Biffenfuhrer...


----------



## WinterBorn

initforme said:


> Texas is an ugly place to live...terrible....but I do like the tax rate.



Tennessee and Florida also have no state income tax.  I'd prefer them over Texas.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.


You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #66:


JoeB131 said:


> *Hillary will probably do better than Obama did*. I know a lot of women (mostly white) who wouldn't vote for Obama, but will vote for Hillary.
> 
> I have yet to meet the person who said, "I voted for Obama in 2012, but man, no way I'm voting for Hillary."
> 
> *Since Jeb Bush is going to be the GOP nominees*, I have yet to see anyone say, "I can't wait to vote for Jeb Bush!"


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to see Texas and Arizona flip to Blue when the Hispanic population starts voting.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to forgive us if we ignore every "prediction" you make while laughing hysterically at you. After all, you are the ignorant, uninformed, immature _asshole_ who made this hilarious prediction as well in post #305:
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary will win by a landslide*.  Nobody who voted for Obama in 2012 is going to vote for one of your crazies next time, and a lot of White Suburban women who wouldn't vote for Obama just can't wait to vote for Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 million votes is a landslide.  Even with the Russian Hackers helping Biffenfuhrer...
Click to expand...

You *lost* in a landslide, poodle. I know your inability to accept reality is affecting you - but she *didn't* win. She lost.


----------



## P@triot

I literally got exhausted going through all of JoeB131 idiotic and inaccurate "predictions". But rest assured - what I have posted here is more than enough to illustrate why he has *zero* credibility among his USMB peers. Even know he wants to proclaim that Hitlery "won" a "landslide" election.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I literally got exhausted going through all of JoeB131 idiotic and inaccurate "predictions". But rest assured - what I have posted here is more than enough to illustrate why he has *zero* credibility among his USMB peers. Even _*know *_he wants to proclaim that Hitlery "won" a "landslide" election.



Poodle, I'm better liked here than you are.   

Hillary won by 3 million votes.  Biff is illegitimate, and you "know" it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, I'm better liked here than you are.




Poodle....literally *nobody* here likes you. Nobody. Not one person has ever had nice things to say about you.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Hillary won by 3 million votes.  Biff is illegitimate, and you "know" it.


Hitlery got obliterated in the Electoral College. That is what elects the U.S. President and has since the beginning. Like everything else in your life, you just can't accept reality and deal with it. Now let's take a look at this beautiful map _again_...


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Poodle....literally *nobody* here likes you. Nobody. Not one person has ever had nice things to say about you.



Okay, Poodle, you keep telling yourself that... while you fixate on me. 



P@triot said:


> Hitlery got obliterated in the Electoral College.



so what?  The People Said NO.  

54% of Americans who bothered to vote didn't want this guy. 

and if this wasn't a big deal, he wouldn't be making wild claims about voter fraud and wiretapping and other fantasies. 

He knows he's a fraud.


----------



## Meane

P@triot said:


> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> Jobs would be bountiful. With low taxes, people would have a lot of money in their pockets for their future and to spend on goods and services in the economy. With private foundations handling the social needs, governments could eliminate their crushing debts (despite the lower taxes). Most of all, it retains liberty for the American people. The blueprint is there. Ask yourself why anyone would oppose proven policies?


What exactly would be the private foundations handling the social needs? Because no matter how I think about it I can't see how it could suffice to meet those needs. And how did the elimination of taxes fit into this? With what money? What do you think liberty means to the poor American people?


----------



## JoeB131

Meane said:


> What exactly would be the private foundations handling the social needs? Because no matter how I think about it I can't see how it could suffice to meet those needs. And how did the elimination of taxes fit into this? With what money? What do you think liberty means to the poor American people?



Poodle learned his history at a school where they teach Ayn Rand in economics and Talking Snakes in Science class. 

If he new any history, he'd realize that the private foundations were overwhelmed during the Great Depression, which is why people demanded the social welfare programs he hates so much.


----------



## P@triot

Meane said:


> What exactly would be the private foundations handling the social needs?


The one's created by all of you bleeding heart liberals who claim to care sooooooo much about those in need. For starters - look at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They do some incredible work with healthcare. Now imagine if George Soros joined that cause. Hollywood liberals. You. Poodle.


Meane said:


> Because no matter how I think about it I can't see how it could suffice to meet those needs.


Even if that were true (and it absolutely is *not*) - so what? Where is it written that government (or society) can *steal* from person A because it deems person B is in need? Whatever those needs are - it is only legal to address them voluntarily.
And how did the elimination of taxes fit into this? 
Because without the government taking 60% of what we earn and pissing away trillions of it on waste, fraud, and abuse, we'll all have a LOT more money which means more commerce (which means more jobs and thus less in need) _and_ more charity.


Meane said:


> What do you think liberty means to the poor American people?


It means the greatest life in the _world_. Being poor in the United States is infinitely better than being wealthy in Russia (ask Bill Browder), or China, or North Korea, etc.

The problem is that you lefties are shallow, materialistic creature. You have no respect for liberty, or family, or the things that money can't buy. You only care about the latest iPhone, the latest plasma tv, and the latest automobile. Liberty was handed to you on a silver platter, you didn't have to earn it and you've never experienced life without it and as such you take it for granite. You treat it like an antiquated idea.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> If he new any history, he'd realize that the private foundations were overwhelmed during the Great Depression, which is why people demanded the social welfare programs he hates so much.


If Poodle here knew history he would know that every single nation that has ever tried his idiotic ideology has collapsed under the weight of the stupidity. The U.S.S.R. Cuba. Cambodia. Greece.

He would also know that the U.S. is *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to his idiotic ideology and that we too will soon collapse.


----------



## P@triot

This is what happens when we do it Poodle's way (simply because he wants to be able to mooch off of society):

From 2000 to 2010, previous administrations expanded Maine’s Medicaid program, *causing it to double both in enrollment and cost*. Due to annual shortfalls, the state was unable to pay hospital bills and provider rates were constantly slashed to bail out the Medicaid program.

The worst of it all, these prior expansions came at the direct expense of our elderly and disabled as nursing facility costs were ignored, home care services were grossly underfunded, and wait lists for home and community services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities grew longer.

For more than a decade, Maine’s finances were in perpetual crisis because of explosive Medicaid growth and out-of-control spending. This is the very same scene that we see playing out today in many of the expansion states as they grapple with sizable state budget shortfalls.
And this is what happens when we do it the *right* way and obey the U.S. Constitution:

This is why we’ve spent the last six years reining in Maine’s Medicaid program. As we’ve reduced enrollment by 24 percent, we’ve contained spending to an average 2% rate of growth compared to the national average of 6%. This year, we are forecasting a 0.7% increase.

At the same time, however, we have been able to increase funding to nursing facilities by over 40% increase rates to home care by 60%, and add an additional $100 million to support the needs of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Additionally, we’ve invested in increased support for primary care to better manage individuals with chronic diseases and to integrate primary care and mental health for those struggling with mental illness.

*None* of these priorities would have been funded in Maine had we expanded Medicaid. And unlike Maine’s previous expansion years, our *uninsured rate has declined*.

With Medicaid’s fiscal crisis now behind us, and with Gov. Paul LePage’s leadership, Maine has reduced taxes, stimulated job growth, and is experiencing one of the lowest unemployment rates in nearly 10 years at 3.8%.
Everything that Poodle stands for and advocates is a FAILED ideology. It never works and it never will. And he knows it too - but he wants the "right" to mooch off of society.

How Maine Achieved Success Without the Medicaid Expansion


----------



## P@triot

"*We must remember that federal tax dollars are never free*, and the insatiable appetite of some states for more federal funding should never be confused with economic development. Fiscal responsibility is imperative."

How Maine Achieved Success Without the Medicaid Expansion


----------



## P@triot

So tell us Poodle where does government, society, you, or anyone derive the power to take from one to give to another? Government is not allowed to discriminate - which means they cannot deprive one while giving to someone else. Just one of many illustrations about how your entire narrative falls flat on its face.

"Government can't give us anything without depriving us of something else." -Henry Hazlitt


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> If Poodle here knew history he would know that every single nation that has ever tried his idiotic ideology has collapsed under the weight of the stupidity. The U.S.S.R. Cuba. Cambodia. Greece.
> 
> He would also know that the U.S. is *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to his idiotic ideology and that we too will soon collapse.



Except no one was advocating communism here, guy.  

And the USSR collapsed for the same reason the British Empire did. But I don't see you calling the collapse of the UK a failure of "Capitalism". 

Empires fall. They always do.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So tell us Poodle where does government, society, you, or anyone derive the power to take from one to give to another? Government is not allowed to discriminate - which means they cannot deprive one while giving to someone else. Just one of many illustrations about how your entire narrative falls flat on its face.



Poodle, sweetie... we had this argument 80 years ago and your side lost.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Poodle where does government, society, you, or anyone derive the power to take from one to give to another? Government is not allowed to discriminate - which means they cannot deprive one while giving to someone else. Just one of many illustrations about how your entire narrative falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle, sweetie... we had this argument 80 years ago and your side lost.
Click to expand...

No we didn't. I can prove it. Just pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it snowflake. What happened 80 years ago is what always happens with your side of the aisle - criminal activity _against_ the will of *we the people*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Poodle here knew history he would know that every single nation that has ever tried his idiotic ideology has collapsed under the weight of the stupidity. The U.S.S.R. Cuba. Cambodia. Greece.
> 
> He would also know that the U.S. is *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to his idiotic ideology and that we too will soon collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one was advocating communism here, guy.
Click to expand...

Poodle here is so stupid, he thinks what he's advocating for is "not" communism


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No we didn't. I can prove it. Just pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it snowflake. What happened 80 years ago is what always happens with your side of the aisle - criminal activity _against_ the will of *we the people*.



Yawn, not terribly interested in what a bunch of slave rapists who shit in chamber pots wrote. 

The fact was, what you advocate was tried. It failed miserably. The Great Depression was really bad.  My parents lived through it, they were still talking about how bad it was 40 years later. (Also what a great guy FDR was... and my Dad was a Nixon Republican) 

We the people voted for FDR by overwhelming numbers four times. The GOP was reduced to such a small number that the real opposition party turned out to be Southern Democrats, because they were more than the surviving 17 Senators and 83 Congressmen the GOP was reduced to by 1936. 

IN fact, the GOP didn't get back into power until Eisenhower admitted that we simply were never going back to the 1929 model, because it didn't work.  And frankly, that was fine. worked fine for Nixon and Ford, too.  Even Reagan was careful to not cross that line.  



P@triot said:


> Poodle here is so stupid, he thinks what he's advocating for is "not" communism



Poodle is too stupid to realize no one is fighting the cold war, and most of us want government services.  Even ones the Slave Rapists didn't think of.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle is too stupid to realize no one is fighting the cold war, and *most of us want government services.  Even ones the Slave Rapists didn't think of*.


If that were even _remotely_ true, then you would have no problem getting the U.S. Constitution amended. The fact that you can't proves you are a *liar*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> ...and most of us want government services


This one sentence alone proves the limited intellect of Poodle here. He actually believes that government is some "magic" entity. He truly has no idea that government is an inanimate concept which can't provide a service.

Poodle - only _people_ can provide a service. And who is going to *pay* those people? I'm not paying for you simply because you're lazy, ignorant, and envious. It's not happening. Deal with it.

We're getting rid of Obamacare. We're getting rid of Social Security. We will restore constitution government and there isn't a damn thing you can do about other than cry like the little bitch that you are or move to one of your utopian failed socialist states that you are too afraid to move to.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, not terribly interested in what a bunch of slave rapists who shit in chamber pots wrote.


Yawn. The U.S. Constitution is the *supreme* *law* of the land. None of us are the least bit interested in your uninformed, ignorant, _opinion_. It *trumps* (pun intended) _everything_ - including your uneducated opinion.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> We the people voted for FDR by overwhelming numbers four times.


*We the people* voted Donald Trump into office to reverse all of the illegal and repulsive acts of the power-hungry, fascists asshole FDR. And we voted true Tea Party conservatives to offices all across the nation for the same reason. Deal with it snowflake.

Nobody cares about FDR's election 80 years ago by desperate and ignorant people who didn't even have television so they could keep up with the day to day illegal activities of FDR.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> If that were even _remotely_ true, then you would have no problem getting the U.S. Constitution amended. The fact that you can't proves you are a *liar*.



Why amend the constitution to do something it already allows for? 

Look, guy, you don't seem to get you strict constructionists are a fringe... you lost your argument 80 years ago. 



P@triot said:


> *We the people* voted Donald Trump into office



Um, no, we didn't.  54% voted against him and his opponent got 3 million more votes.  Oh, yeah, his approval rating is down in the 30's already.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> This one sentence alone proves the limited intellect of Poodle here. He actually believes that government is some "magic" entity. He truly has no idea that government is an inanimate concept which can't provide a service.
> 
> Poodle - only _people_ can provide a service. And who is going to *pay* those people? I'm not paying for you simply because you're lazy, ignorant, and envious. It's not happening. Deal with it.



YOu couldn't afford my services anyway, Poodle.  

But you will pay to take care of the less fortunate, whether you want to or not. 

Have fun in tax season, Schmuck!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were even _remotely_ true, then you would have no problem getting the U.S. Constitution amended. The fact that you can't proves you are a *liar*.
> 
> 
> 
> Why amend the constitution to do something it already allows for?
Click to expand...

Because it *doesn't* allow for it. And you know it. And no matter how much you attempt to lie about it, you can't change reality. Everyone can read the U.S. Constitution (well, anyone who isn't a left-wing nitwit).

There is a reason that Republicans are in charge coast-to-coast and border-to-border in this nation. The American people are tired of you parasites violating the U.S. Constitution. President Trump and Betsy DeVos are already doing an amazing job with the Department of Education and it _might_ not even exist any more by the time they are through because it is 100% unconstitutional.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, we didn't.  54% voted against him and his opponent got 3 million more votes.  Oh, yeah, his approval rating is down in the 30's already.


He sits in the Oval Office this morning because *We the People* elected him snowflake. You can deny reality all you want, but it won't change reality.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Because it *doesn't* allow for it. And you know it. And no matter how much you attempt to lie about it, you can't change reality. Everyone can read the U.S. Constitution (well, anyone who isn't a left-wing nitwit).



Again, the Constitution doesn't allow or disallow for it, and I really don't thin we need to take health Policy advice from people who thought Roots and Leeches were cutting edge medical technology. 



P@triot said:


> There is a reason that Republicans are in charge coast-to-coast and border-to-border in this nation. The American people are tired of you parasites violating the U.S. Constitution. President Trump and Betsy DeVos are already doing an amazing job with the Department of Education and it _might_ not even exist any more by the time they are through because it is 100% unconstitutional.



Guy, you haven't won the national popular vote once in the last 7 elections. The people do not support you. 

That you've gerrymandered your way into a fake majority until people get wise to you isn't anything to be impressed about.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> He sits in the Oval Office this morning because *We the People* elected him snowflake. You can deny reality all you want, but it won't change reality.



Most people voted against him, and his popularity rating is in the toilet. 

It'll get worse when you wingnuts find out that the ACA isn't going away after all.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> It'll get worse when you wingnuts find out that the ACA isn't going away after all.


Oh look....another "prediction" from the nitwit who has been wrong more than all weathermen in history combined. Haven't we gone over this already? How are you not humiliated by your long and laughable history of failed "predictions"? And yet _still_ you are too stupid to stop making them.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> ...and I really don't thin we need to take health Policy advice from people who thought Roots and Leeches were cutting edge medical technology.


Thankfully for the United States, the American people could care less what you _think_. After all, thinking is not your strong point. At all.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Oh look....another "prediction" from the nitwit who has been wrong more than all weathermen in history combined. Haven't we gone over this already? How are you not humiliated by your long and laughable history of failed "predictions"? And yet _still_ you are too stupid to stop making them.



Yawn, Poodle, you've made as many predictions that turned out to be wrong.. Just ask President Romney...


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Thankfully for the United States, the American people could care less what you _think_. After all, thinking is not your strong point. At all.



Most AMericans support medicare and medicaid... so  you'd be wrong. 

It's why it's hilarious to watch the Right Wing claim they oppose ObamaCare because they are trying to save Medicare after 40 years of trying to gut it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look....another "prediction" from the nitwit who has been wrong more than all weathermen in history combined. Haven't we gone over this already? How are you not humiliated by your long and laughable history of failed "predictions"? And yet _still_ you are too stupid to stop making them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, Poodle, you've made as many predictions that turned out to be wrong.. Just ask President Romney...
Click to expand...

I never made a single "prediction" - including Romney. All I did was share what the media was saying. They were not my words nor did I even attempt to pass them off as such.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully for the United States, the American people could care less what you _think_. After all, thinking is not your strong point. At all.
> 
> 
> 
> Most AMericans support medicare and medicaid... so  you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...

All intelligent and educated Americans recognize it is another failed left-wing marxist program that is now insolvent. And that is why Republicans control everything across the nation. The people realize that when things are a mess, they have to turn over control to the only adults in the room.


----------



## ScienceRocks

The only ones that gets this prosperity is the top 1% under your plan P@troit. Without government = that 1% will lock out anyone from moving upwards with nasty tricks.


----------



## P@triot

Matthew said:


> The only ones that gets this prosperity is the top 1% under your plan P@troit. Without government = that 1% will lock out anyone from moving upwards with nasty tricks.


Except that they *can't* do that. Only government can prevent people from moving up. Bill Gates has zero ability to stop me from doing _anything_.

You've either completely bought into the left-wing false narrative or your lying...


----------



## P@triot

Matthew said:


> The only ones that gets this prosperity is the top 1% under your plan P@troit. Without government = that 1% will lock out anyone from moving upwards with nasty tricks.


By the way - "my" plan is *liberty* by simply adhering to the U.S. Constitution. It is a flawless plan which has *never* failed (and it never can).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I never made a single "prediction" - including Romney. All I did was share what the media was saying. They were not my words nor did I even attempt to pass them off as such.



Okay, if that's what you want to go with... 



P@triot said:


> All intelligent and educated Americans recognize it is another failed left-wing marxist program that is now insolvent. And that is why Republicans control everything across the nation. The people realize that when things are a mess, they have to turn over control to the only adults in the room.



guy, repeating whatever shit the Koch brothers tell you isn't "intelligence". 

There's no problem with these programs other than we aren't taxing the rich enough to pay for them. The program that is in trouble are these thieving private insurance companies looking for 100 billion in bailouts under DonnyCare.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



No, Maine did not take food stamps away from 80% of recipients.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones that gets this prosperity is the top 1% under your plan P@troit. Without government = that 1% will lock out anyone from moving upwards with nasty tricks.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way - "my" plan is *liberty* by simply adhering to the U.S. Constitution. It is a flawless plan which has *never* failed (and it never can).
Click to expand...


So go back to counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person?  Was that flawless?


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> So go back to counting blacks as 3/5ths of a person?  Was that flawless?


Was that liberty? Nope! You left-wing racist hatriots wanted to keep people enslaved - just like you do today. Thankfully *Republicans* stepped in (as we always have to do) and restored liberty  with a constitutional amendment. And as I stated above - "restore liberty by *adhering* to the *U.S. Constitution*". Would you like to try again snowflake?

By the way - every time you people bring up the 3/5ths clause you embarrass yourselves because you literally have *no* idea what it is.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Was that liberty? Nope! You left-wing racist hatriots wanted to keep people enslaved - just like you do today. Thankfully *Republicans* stepped in (as we always have to do) and restored liberty with a constitutional amendment. And as I stated above - "restore liberty by *adhering* to the *U.S. Constitution*". Would you like to try again snowflake?



So, Poodle, how is voter suppression and giving tax cuts to the rich providing "freedom" to black folks today?  

This country was founded by slave owners. It was conservatives who wanted to keep it that way.  Republicans were initially a PROGRESSIVE party, not a conservative one.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So, Poodle, how is voter suppression


It's not. Which is why voter fraud is exclusively a left-wing phenomena.


JoeB131 said:


> and giving tax cuts to the rich providing "freedom" to black folks today?


Tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people (where it _belongs_).


----------



## theHawk

P@triot said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

More indisputable evidence that _everything_ about the conservative ideology raises the standard of living for all of society. Some key points from this article:


> In a society in which a college degree is almost required for entry into the upper middle class, 77% of people whose families are in the top quarter of the earnings distribution secure a bachelor’s degree by the time they are 24. For people in the lowest income bracket, that figure is 9%.


So that would obviously dictate that education is the single most critical factor to moving from lower class to middle class and middle class to upper class. So obviously Utah must spend a _fortune_ on education - right? _Wrong_.


> The state has not invested a lot in fighting poverty, nor on schools; Utah is dead last in per-pupil education spending.


We'll based on these two *indisputable* *facts* - then Utah must be among the lowest in "upward mobility", if not dead last. Wrong _again_.


> But things look a lot better in Salt Lake City, which economists Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline and Emmanuel Saez identified as having the highest rates of absolute upward mobility in the nation. So I went to Utah to discover its secrets and assess whether they could be exported.


So this hard data supports everything about the conservative ideology and proves that everything about the progressive ideology is 100% false. Their biggest success is addressing poverty through charity - most notably the (Mormon) church. Just as conservatives have been saying for the past 100 years.

How Utah Keeps the American Dream Alive


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> More indisputable evidence that _everything_ about the conservative ideology raises the standard of living for all of society.



Then why have the five of the last six recessions happened when Conservatives were in charge?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence that _everything_ about the conservative ideology raises the standard of living for all of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have the five of the last six recessions happened when Conservatives were in charge?
Click to expand...

Because they follow 8 long years of *failed* left-wing policy, which takes its toll. Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act had a catastrophic effect on the housing market which had a catastrophic effect on the economy.

In addition - economies are intertwined at least to _some_ degree (and in some cases are completely intertwined) so when the left-wing leaders in Cuba, Greece, Britain, France, China, etc. *fail*, it impacts the U.S. economy.

Finally - your idea of "in charge" is skewed. You think a Republican in the White House means Republicans are "in charge". When in fact, the George W. Bush administration ended its last 2 years under Dumbocrat control of Congress. They pass the legislation which impacts society.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Everywhere we see conservative policy we see prosperity follow (innovations, jobs, tax revenues to the government, etc.).


> And Wyoming has the most business-friendly tax climate in the nation


Why You Should Put Your Supercomputer in Wyoming


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Because they follow 8 long years of *failed* left-wing policy, which takes its toll. Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act had a catastrophic effect on the housing market which had a catastrophic effect on the economy.



To it took the CRA (which was actually enacted in the 1970's, but never mind) ten years to bring down the economy, and it had nothing to do with the fact that banks not covered by the CRA were making loans to people who couldn't afford them, and then selling the worthless paper as investments?

Guy, you need to stop getting your economic advice from Hate Radio. The 2008 meltdown did not happen because banks were legally required to loan to poor people if they qualified. It happened because all these middle class white people were buying McMansions as investments hoping to flip them in a couple of years. 



P@triot said:


> In addition - economies are intertwined at least to _some_ degree (and in some cases are completely intertwined) so when the left-wing leaders in Cuba, Greece, Britain, France, China, etc. *fail*, it impacts the U.S. economy.



Except the epicenter of the 2008 meltdown was the US banks. The epicenter of the 1990 meltdown was the S&L Crisis.  You could make the argument (if you were capable of making an argument and not just regurgitating whatever shit you hear Rush say yesterday) that 2001 was indeed a global recession - inventories were too high and had to be whittled down -

If you want to go back further, the 1981 recession was caused by the Fed intentionally driving up unemployment to drive down wages and inflation. (That's when they still had that kind of mojo). Reagan supported and went along with this policy because he considered inflation to be the greater evil.

The 1975 recession was caused by the sudden downturn in military spending when Vietnam ended combined with the oil shocks of the 70's.

Not that we would do anything totally sensible like try to get off of oil or redirect that money into building infrastructure, because that would be silly.



P@triot said:


> Finally - your idea of "in charge" is skewed. You think a Republican in the White House means Republicans are "in charge".



You might have a point. Republicans are amazingly never, ever responsible for when they fuck up.  Just ask Trump.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> To it took the CRA (which was actually enacted in the 1970's, but never mind) ten years to bring down the economy, and it had nothing to do with the fact that banks not covered by the CRA were making loans to people who couldn't afford them, and then selling the worthless paper as investments?


Banks don't make loans to people who can't afford them. And selling off the bad loans as investments was a brilliant strategy to get out from under the bad loans the government forced them to make.

And the prospectus on all of those loans were 100% accurate with *full* disclosure. If the papers were worthless then the greedy investors have no one to blame but themselves for not reading the prospectus on each investment as they are supposed to and yet investing in them anyway.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> You might have a point. Republicans are amazingly never, ever responsible for when they fuck up.  Just ask Trump.


So for Bush's final two years (which ended in the great crash when Barack Obama took over) who controlled Congress again? Go ahead... you can say it. Everyone knows the answer already. That's right - it was the Dumbocrats!!!


----------



## Lakhota

> *The blueprint for prosperity*



Grind NaziCons into fertilizer?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Banks don't make loans to people who can't afford them. And selling off the bad loans as investments was a brilliant strategy to get out from under the bad loans the government forced them to make.



But that's exactly what they did, that's the point out don't get.  

The problem wasn't the CRA, those loans are highly regulated. The problem was Mr. and Mrs. Whitebread buying a McMansion they couldn't afford hoping to flip it at a profit in a couple of years like they do on that show on TLC. 

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA





P@triot said:


> And the prospectus on all of those loans were 100% accurate with *full* disclosure. If the papers were worthless then the greedy investors have no one to blame but themselves for not reading the prospectus on each investment as they are supposed to and yet investing in them anyway.



Why do you make a virtue out of greed and cheating people?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So for Bush's final two years (which ended in the great crash when Barack Obama took over) who controlled Congress again? Go ahead... you can say it. Everyone knows the answer already. That's right - it was the Dumbocrats!!!



Bush was still the guy who was running the FEC, FSLIC, FDIC, all cronies who were doing a "Hecuva job" 

The Top 43 Appointees Who Helped Make Bush The Worst President Ever

36. Christopher Cox — Under Chairman Cox, the Securities and Exchange Commission censored internal reports showing that it ignored critical signs pointing to Wall Street’s meltdown. Cox’s SEC also failed to detect Bernie Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme, despite a decade of warnings.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the prospectus on all of those loans were 100% accurate with *full* disclosure. If the papers were worthless then the greedy investors have no one to blame but themselves for not reading the prospectus on each investment as they are supposed to and yet investing in them anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you make a virtue out of greed and cheating people?
Click to expand...

I don't. Like I said - *nobody* was cheated. There wasn't one damn thing left out of the prospectus on each and every one of those rolled up home loan investments. The people were greedy and didn't do their homework - they got exactly what they deserved. Greed + Laziness = epic failure. That's why left-wing policy ALWAYS fails. Because it nothing more than greed + laziness.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for Bush's final two years (which ended in the great crash when Barack Obama took over) who controlled Congress again? Go ahead... you can say it. Everyone knows the answer already. That's right - it was the Dumbocrats!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush was still the guy who was running the FEC, FSLIC, FDIC, all cronies who were doing a "Hecuva job"
> 
> The Top 43 Appointees Who Helped Make Bush The Worst President Ever
> 
> 36. Christopher Cox — Under Chairman Cox, the Securities and Exchange Commission censored internal reports showing that it ignored critical signs pointing to Wall Street’s meltdown. Cox’s SEC also failed to detect Bernie Madoff’s $50 billion Ponzi scheme, despite a decade of warnings.
Click to expand...

Who created the FDIC, the FEC, the FSLIC? You left-wing idiots. And who could have written legislation to prevent Bush and his "cronies"? You left-wing idiots.

Sorry brother - you can't pass the buck on this one no matter how hard you try. You LWNJ's created the unconstitutional bureaucracies and you LWNJ's controlled Congress when shit went south.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I don't. Like I said - *nobody* was cheated. There wasn't one damn thing left out of the prospectus on each and every one of those rolled up home loan investments. The people were greedy and didn't do their homework - they got exactly what they deserved. Greed + Laziness = epic failure. That's why left-wing policy ALWAYS fails. Because it nothing more than greed + laziness.



Poodle, if what the banks did was on the up and up, they wouldn't have had to go through such lengths to hide what they were doing.  



P@triot said:


> Who created the FDIC, the FEC, the FSLIC? You left-wing idiots. And who could have written legislation to prevent Bush and his "cronies"? You left-wing idiots.



Except there was legislation to keep this from happening.  Bush and his cronies didn't enforce it. It's kind of like saying, "Well, you should have had a law against murder" when the cops took bribes from the murderers. 

Point was, you guys finally got what youwanted in terms of regulations--- and it was an EPIC failure.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, if what the banks did was on the up and up, they wouldn't have had to go through such lengths to hide what they were doing.


Nothing was "hidden". There was full disclosure in the investment prospectuses. I've already proven you wrong on this point dozens of times years ago. I even posted the full 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Michael Bury who made over $700 million because he took the time to read the investment prospectuses which were 100% accurate and honest.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. It's just that the left wants everyone to be "equal" in poverty and dependent on government...


> The House Republican tax reform plan introduced by Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) would create 1.7 million jobs and increase after-tax incomes on average by 8.7%, according to a report from the Tax Foundation. The plan lowers marginal tax rates on wage, investment, and business income as well as simplifying the tax code so that it could fit on a postcard. The reform package would also lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, broaden the tax base, and eliminate federal estate and gift taxes.


Report: House Tax Reform Plan Would Create 1.7 Million Jobs and Increase After-Tax Incomes


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Nothing was "hidden". There was full disclosure in the investment prospectuses. I've already proven you wrong on this point dozens of times years ago. I even posted the full 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Michael Bury who made over $700 million because he took the time to read the investment prospectuses which were 100% accurate and honest.



Yawn, guy, the general rule of commerce is "Caveat Vendor", not "Caveat Emptor".  It's up to the seller to practice due dilligence, not the buyer. 

It's why you can go to the fast food place today and not have to worry about getting food poison. because there's a whole bunch of government protections that keep that from happening. You don't have to test the food before you eat it. 

The same thing should apply to the stock market.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. It's just that the left wants everyone to be "equal" in poverty and dependent on government...
> 
> 
> 
> The House Republican tax reform plan introduced by Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) would create 1.7 million jobs and increase after-tax incomes on average by 8.7%, according to a report from the Tax Foundation. The plan lowers marginal tax rates on wage, investment, and business income as well as simplifying the tax code so that it could fit on a postcard. The reform package would also lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, broaden the tax base, and eliminate federal estate and gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Report: House Tax Reform Plan Would Create 1.7 Million Jobs and Increase After-Tax Incomes
Click to expand...


This is the same song you jokers have been singing since 1980. Just give the rich tax breaks and they'll create good jobs. 

Or we can take their money and create good jobs.  That works even better.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy, the general rule of commerce is "Caveat Vendor", not "Caveat Emptor".  It's up to the seller to practice due dilligence, not the buyer.


You have a long history of really dumb posts, but this one may be the dumbest one yet. It's an investors job to do their due diligence, understand the investment, and understand the risks. That's just a *fact* snowflake.

*Nothing* was "hidden". There was full disclosure in the investment prospectuses. I've already proven you wrong on this point dozens of times years ago. I even posted the full 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Michael Bury who made over $700 million because he took the time to read the investment prospectuses which were 100% accurate and honest.[/QUOTE]


JoeB131 said:


> The same thing should apply to the stock market.


Key word there snowflake - "should". Nobody cares how you _think_ the world "should" work. This idiotic post of your is yet another example of you believing that corporations should provide for you. You think it is their responsibility to think for you, act for you, handle due diligence for you, etc. You're like a fuck'n newborn baby - you accept 0 personal responsibility for your own life.

The banks were 100% honest in their prospectuses. Full disclosure. Greedy, lazy people like you failed to read those prospectuses. That's your fault.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> This is the same song you jokers have been singing since 1980. Just give the rich tax breaks and they'll create good jobs. *Or we can take their money and create good jobs*.  That works even better.


Who is "we"? You don't own a business, snowflake. The job creators need the money to hire people. So that's what we do. It works _every_ time.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You have a long history of really dumb posts, but this one may be the dumbest one yet. It's an investors job to do their due diligence, understand the investment, and understand the risks. That's just a *fact* snowflake.



Guy, your fraud got you Obama... do you really want to keep doing that, because you'll get socialism a lot faster that way.  

People are pretty sick of the 1% fucking them over with schemes like this. Even Trump played the class warfare card this election.  

But you keep thinking that everyone just loves Wall Street.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Who is "we"? You don't own a business, snowflake. The job creators need the money to hire people. So that's what we do. It works _every_ time.



actually, I do own a business, but never mind. 

Businesses don't create jobs. Consumer Demand creates jobs. 

For instance, you could invest in a shit sandwich factory, buy the finest equipment, hire a bunch of employees, but you would be out of business in a few weeks because no one wants to eat a shit sandwich. 

There's no consumer demand for it.  

The thing is, government can provide jobs to meet demands just as well as the private sector, and there are some things the private sector just won't do because there's not enough money to be made doing it. 

The reality is, the "Capitalism" you love so much only exists because of lots of government support, subsidy and carve-outs.  

Which is awesome, because, honestly, you wouldn't want to live in the Gilded Age before we did these things and most people lived in abject poverty.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a long history of really dumb posts, but this one may be the dumbest one yet. It's an investors job to do their due diligence, understand the investment, and understand the risks. That's just a *fact* snowflake.
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, your fraud got you Obama... do you really want to keep doing that, because you'll get socialism a lot faster that way.
Click to expand...

Again...there was *no* fraud. Absolutely everything was honest, legal, and properly disclosed. Just ask Michael Burr. He made over $700 million on credit default swaps because everything _was_ properly disclosed.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Even Trump played the class warfare card this election.


Is that your new false narrative? If President Trump played the "class warfare card" then why did you predict he would lose so badly? You would have predicted that he would win had he done that. _Oops_...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Businesses don't create jobs. Consumer Demand creates jobs.


Who creates consumer demand, snowflake? *Corporations*. Apple created demand when they created superior products like the iPhone and the iPad. That's how it works. Someone creates a product or service because they realize a need for it (sometimes even before the masses do) and that generates desire/demand from consumers.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again...there was *no* fraud. Absolutely everything was honest, legal, and properly disclosed. Just ask Michael Burr. He made over $700 million on credit default swaps because everything _was_ properly disclosed.



Again, the rich gaming the system might be legal, but it isn't honest. 

That's like saying that when the Soviets executed the fuck out of the kulaks in 1920, it was all legal, honest and properly disclosed... 



P@triot said:


> Who creates consumer demand, snowflake? *Corporations*. Apple created demand when they created superior products like the iPhone and the iPad. That's how it works. Someone creates a product or service because they realize a need for it (sometimes even before the masses do) and that generates desire/demand from consumers.



They don't create consumer demand.  

Consumers create consumer demand.  

Now, I do give them credit that (after massive government subsidy and research) that some of these companies do create innovation. 

For instance, the Internet itself was a government initiative, not a private one. It was developed so the Military could transmit data. 

Again, the Capitalist is a parasite that has convinced stupid people like you he's a vital organ.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...there was *no* fraud. Absolutely everything was honest, legal, and properly disclosed. Just ask Michael Burr. He made over $700 million on credit default swaps because everything _was_ properly disclosed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the rich gaming the system might be legal, but it isn't honest.
Click to expand...

Again...*nobody* "gamed" the "system". It was all 100% honest, legal, and properly disclosed. Just ask Dr. Michael Burry. No matter how many times you tell that lie (which you were dumb enough to believe), it won't change the reality or the history. It is all properly documented and indisputable.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who creates consumer demand, snowflake? *Corporations*. Apple created demand when they created superior products like the iPhone and the iPad. That's how it works. Someone creates a product or service because they realize a need for it (sometimes even before the masses do) and that generates desire/demand from consumers.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't create consumer demand. Consumers create consumer demand.
Click to expand...

Consumers can't demand that which they have not thought of. Nobody desired the iPad before it was created.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again...*nobody* "gamed" the "system". It was all 100% honest, legal, and properly disclosed. Just ask Dr. Michael Burry. No matter how many times you tell that lie (which you were dumb enough to believe), it won't change the reality or the history. It is all properly documented and indisputable.



Don't care about this grifter who scammed the system. It's still a scam. 

Maybe a lot of us are just sick of being ripped off by the "too big to fail' scammers... (Not that you are one, Poodle... you are just fetching coffee for the big man between reading passages from Ayn Rand.) 



P@triot said:


> Consumers can't demand that which they have not thought of. Nobody desired the iPad before it was created.



No, it was the natural evolution of technology... which had nothing to do with investors...  

Again, keep mistaking that parasite for a vital organ...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...*nobody* "gamed" the "system". It was all 100% honest, legal, and properly disclosed. Just ask Dr. Michael Burry. No matter how many times you tell that lie (which you were dumb enough to believe), it won't change the reality or the history. It is all properly documented and indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care about this grifter who scammed the system. It's still a scam.
Click to expand...

He wasn't a "grifter" and he didn't "scam the system". You keep thinking that as long as you lie about it, it will somehow rewrite history. It won't snowflake. Unfortunately for your fascist ass, you live in the age of technology where things are captured, archived, videoed, etc.

Dr. Michael Burry took the prospectuses on the investments and read them. He saw the risks of those investments because they were *100% accurate* with *full* disclosure. That's just the simple, indisputable, undeniable reality, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers can't demand that which they have not thought of. Nobody desired the iPad before it was created.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was the natural evolution of technology... which had nothing to do with investors...
Click to expand...

There is no "natural evolution" of technology, genius. Technology is not nature. 

There is absolutely no "natural" (or even unnatural for that matter) "evolution" for technology. There is either someone with a vision bringing a product to market or there isn't. Nothing in nature dictates a natural order which cannot be bypassed. And it's that product which creates demand.

Consumers didn't go to Steve Jobs and demand an iPad. He had an idea for a better way for man to consume content and he brought it to market. Once the people saw it, they loved it and felt they had to have one. That's how it works. Same thing with Henry Ford. The masses didn't demand an automobile. They were fine with horses. Ford saw a better way and brought it to market.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> He wasn't a "grifter" and he didn't "scam the system". You keep thinking that as long as you lie about it, it will somehow rewrite history. It won't snowflake. Unfortunately for your fascist ass, you live in the age of technology where things are captured, archived, videoed, etc.



i'm sure you want to be a grifter just like him when you grow up. 

I want to make sure he doesn't grift people who are just out there doing the hard work. 



P@triot said:


> Consumers didn't go to Steve Jobs and demand an iPad. He had an idea for a better way for man to consume content and he brought it to market. Once the people saw it, they loved it and felt they had to have one. That's how it works. Same thing with Henry Ford. The masses didn't demand an automobile. They were fine with horses. Ford saw a better way and brought it to market.



Steve Jobs didn't personally invent the IPad... a bunch of engineers and designers working for him did.  and that was only after Bill Gates brought him back after cheating him on his share of Microsoft. 

You keep worshiping the Grifters, though, Poodle. Some day, they'll let you do more than fetch their coffee...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> I want to make sure he doesn't grift people who are just out there doing the hard work.


And *none *of them did, snowflake. So why do you keep whining? Because the people who lost their asses did so because they refused to do their jobs properly? Yeah...that's how life works, snowflake. You're actually mad that people who didn't do their job properly took it on the chin. Vintage idiot socialism.


JoeB131 said:


> Steve Jobs didn't personally invent the IPad... a bunch of engineers and designers working for him did.


Yeah...no shit, snowflake. It was still his idea. That's how it works. He came up with ideas and directed his engineers to build it. Guess what else, snowflake? Steve Jobs didn't answer the customer support phones at Apple. He didn't do the accounting. He didn't mop the floors. That in no way diminishes what he achieved.

Your envy of people more successful than you is pitiful and repulsive.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And *none *of them did, snowflake. So why do you keep whining? Because the people who lost their asses did so because they refused to do their jobs properly? Yeah...that's how life works, snowflake. You're actually mad that people who didn't do their job properly took it on the chin. Vintage idiot socialism.



Guy, the fact is, TRILLIONS were lost in value because of the grifters you admire, in home value and stock value...  And a few grifters gamed the system while millions lost their homes, life savings and jobs... 

And you wonder why Bernie Sanders (who actually is a communist) has so much support. 



P@triot said:


> Yeah...no shit, snowflake. It was still his idea. That's how it works. He came up with ideas and directed his engineers to build it.



He did no such thing... but I doubt you understand how technology works.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, the fact is, TRILLIONS were lost in value because of the grifters you admire, in home value and stock value...


No....the *fact* is that trillions were lost because of government intervention (90%) and a bunch of lazy, incompetent people didn't do their jobs properly (10%).


----------



## P@triot

Thank you *President Trump* for reversing the Dumbocrats *failed* left-wing policies...

Apple’s Billion-Dollar Investment Provides a Blueprint for US Manufacturing


----------



## ScienceRocks

Maybe for the top 1-2% but how about the rest of the country? History shows that anti-trust, regulations and higher wages for the workers through unions are the way to go.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No....the *fact* is that trillions were lost because of government intervention (90%) and a bunch of lazy, incompetent people didn't do their jobs properly (10%).



No, they were lost because the one percenters got greedy, and tricked a lot of people into thinking they could get rich quick. 

The smart people all knew this was a bubble, but they did nothing to try to contain it. They just let it pop and made money, and screw anyone who got hurt in the process.  

And you wonder why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country right now. He shouldn't be, he's a wanker.


----------



## P@triot

Matthew said:


> History shows that anti-trust, regulations and higher wages for the workers through unions are the way to go.


History doesn't show that at all. Why do you _always_ *lie*?


> “The most comprehensive study of the facts undertaken in recent times is that by the Temporary National Economic Committee on the Concentration of Economic Power. The final report of this committee (which certainly cannot be accused of an undue conservative bias) arrives at the conclusion that the view according to which the greater efficiency of large-scale production is the cause of the disappearance of competition “finds scant support in any evidence that is now at hand.” And the detailed monograph on the question which was prepared for the committee sums up the answer in this statement:
> 
> “It should be noted, moreover, *that monopoly is frequently* the product of factors other than the lower costs of greater size. It is *attained through collusive agreement and promoted by public policies*.”


In other words - monopolies are the result of government intervention and idiotic left-wing policy. Oops....more indisputable proof that you just make shit up as you go.

Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.” University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> History doesn't show that at all. Why do you _always_ *lie*?



Actually, history shows exactly that.  Guy, people were fucking miserable during the Gilded Age. It's why we had a labor movement and a progressive movement. 

Except for those countries that straight up said fuck it, and just put in Communists or Fascists and shot their one percenters or turned them into lampshades.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> History doesn't show that at all. Why do you _always_ *lie*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, history shows exactly that.  Guy, people were fucking miserable during the Gilded Age. It's why we had a labor movement and a progressive movement.
> 
> Except for those countries that straight up said fuck it, and just put in Communists or Fascists and shot their one percenters or turned them into lampshades.
Click to expand...

Thank you! History doesn't show that at all - just like I said. What it does show is that the left is greedy, lazy, and _violent_.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Thank you! History doesn't show that at all - just like I said. What it does show is that the left is greedy, lazy, and _violent_.



Actually, what it shows is that human beings are lazy, greedy and violent no matter what their political leanings.  Some day, little Poodle, you'll grow up and learn this.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you! History doesn't show that at all - just like I said. What it does show is that the left is greedy, lazy, and _violent_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it shows is that human beings are lazy, greedy and violent no matter what their political leanings.
Click to expand...

You're starting to admit some truth now that you've been backed into a corner. But the right is *not* greedy, lazy, _or_ violent. The right doesn't advocate for socialism like you wing-nuts do, so that eliminates being lazy and greedy. And the right doesn't resort to rioting, violence, and destruction when they lose an election like you wing-nuts do, so that eliminates violence.

By the way - if you really believe that "human beings are lazy, greedy and violent no matter what their political leanings" then you just made the greatest case yet for rejecting the idiotic left-wing ideology. Why would you grant unlimited power over your life to others if it is just human nature to be greedy and violence, dumb-ass?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You're starting to admit some truth now that you've been backed into a corner. But the right is *not* greedy, lazy, _or_ violent.



Um, yeah, you are... 

When the poor steal, it's called "Crime".
When the Rich steal, it's called "Profits".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Food stamps and unemployment checks were the twin engines driving the Obama economy


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> When the poor steal, it's called "Crime".
> When the Rich steal, it's called "Profits".


Really? So Bernie Madoff wasn't arrested and convicted of a crime? They just called it "profit" and celebrated him?

Stealing is a crime wether one is wealthy or poor. The problem with you is that you want to pretend like *earning* is actually stealing. You're greedy and lazy - thus you need the false narrative.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Really? So Bernie Madoff wasn't arrested and convicted of a crime? They just called it "profit" and celebrated him?
> 
> Stealing is a crime wether one is wealthy or poor. The problem with you is that you want to pretend like *earning* is actually stealing. You're greedy and lazy - thus you need the false narrative.



Bernie Madoff only got in trouble when he ripped off other rich people...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Bernie Madoff only got in trouble when he ripped off other rich people...


Ladies & Gentlemen....I give you the juvenile "logic" of a left-wing nut-job incapable of defending his absurd and irrational position.

Snowflake...it's *illegal* to steal (unless you work for the government). It's illegal for dirt-bad low-life's like _you_ and it's illegal for wealthy, educated people like Johnny Ive.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Ladies & Gentlemen....I give you the juvenile "logic" of a left-wing nut-job incapable of defending his absurd and irrational position.
> 
> Snowflake...it's *illegal* to steal (unless you work for the government). It's illegal for dirt-bad low-life's like _you_ and it's illegal for wealthy, educated people like Johnny Ive.



Again- when the poor steal, it's called Crime.
When the rich steal, it's called Profits.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen....I give you the juvenile "logic" of a left-wing nut-job incapable of defending his absurd and irrational position.
> 
> Snowflake...it's *illegal* to steal (unless you work for the government). It's illegal for dirt-bad low-life's like _you_ and it's illegal for wealthy, educated people like Johnny Ive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- when the poor steal, it's called Crime.
> When the rich steal, it's called Profits.
Click to expand...

Again - you're an idiot who lies to defend an indefensible position.


----------



## P@triot

We need to reel in the federal government and restore constitutional government. Let's hope the do-nothing Republican Congress can at _least_ get this legislation passed...

Lawmaker Exhorts Congress to Retake Its Role


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again - you're an idiot who lies to defend an indefensible position.



again, little poodle, when you grow up and get to work in the business world for 25 years, get back to me.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> We need to reel in the federal government and restore constitutional government. Let's hope the do-nothing Republican Congress can at _least_ get this legislation passed...



Naw, man... What we need is for people to wake the fuck up to what you guys are trying to pull.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again - you're an idiot who lies to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> 
> 
> again, little poodle, when you grow up and get to work in the business world for 25 years, get back to me.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. Thanks for playing.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to reel in the federal government and restore constitutional government. Let's hope the do-nothing Republican Congress can at _least_ get this legislation passed...
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man... What we need is for people to wake the fuck up to what you guys are trying to pull.
Click to expand...

Agreed! We need people to wake up to the fact that conservatives are trying to restore *liberty*, build a robust economy, and uphold the U.S. Constitution. And the things you progressives are trying to prevent.


----------



## bendog

Let's cut those programs for working off student loans.  That shit destroys the economy.  LOL+


----------



## P@triot

bendog said:


> Let's cut those programs for working off student loans.  That shit destroys the economy.  LOL+


Let's cut government-provided student loans. It has caused the price of college to increase a billion times over the rate of inflation.

Guess what will happen when all of these universities find their classrooms empty because the cost of college is too expensive? That's right - the price will plummet. Basic economics.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

initforme said:


> Texas is an ugly place to live...terrible....but I do like the tax rate.



The rest of the country subsidized Texas.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite

P@triot said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's cut those programs for working off student loans.  That shit destroys the economy.  LOL+
> 
> 
> 
> Let's cut government-provided student loans. It has caused the price of college to increase a billion times over the rate of inflation.
> 
> Guess what will happen when all of these universities find their classrooms empty because the cost of college is too expensive? That's right - the price will plummet. Basic economics.
Click to expand...



This is a real problems with RWNJs. They're unable to understand nuance and tend to believe an extremely over-simplified description like this one.

If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, can afford to educate people for free.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> This is a real problems with RWNJs. They're unable to understand nuance and tend to believe an extremely over-simplified description like this one.


That's the official party line when the left is presented with indisputable facts which they are unable to deny. This is basic economics, Adolf. Basic supply and demand. It's not a coincidence that college tuition drastically outpaced inflation right around the time school loans became available (even though your desperate to proclaim it was some bizarre coincidence).


Luddly Neddite said:


> If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, *can afford to educate people for free*.


This is a prime example why nobody takes the left seriously about economics, politics, law, etc. The fact that you actually believe it is "free" is as freaking hilarious as it is tragic. You literally have no idea that it is not "free" but rather - is being stolen from other people (against their will) who do not receive the product or service they are being forced to pay for.


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, can afford to educate people for free.


Basic economics for Adolf here...


> “Glenn, *one of the reasons why health care is so broken* — one of the many reasons, but one of the big reasons — *is that the person paying for it isn’t the person using it*,” Walker said.


Imagine a Priceline.com or Upside.com for Everything (Even Health Insurance)


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, can afford to educate people for free.


Basic economics for Adolf here...


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, can afford to educate people for free.


Basic economics for Adolf here...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

P@triot said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, can afford to educate people for free.
> 
> 
> 
> Basic economics for Adolf here...
Click to expand...




Your posts indicate that you not only don't want to understand why you're wrong but that you have no idea what Hitler's politics were.

That's another way to identify RWNJ Pootarian traitors. They're stupid, they don't want to learn and they foolishly believe they know everything there is to know about everything.

That's okay with me but you really don't.

[emoji57]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Agreed! We need people to wake up to the fact that conservatives are trying to restore *liberty*, build a robust economy, and uphold the U.S. Constitution. And the things you progressives are trying to prevent.



Except every time you guys get into power, you fuck up the economy.  Then you claim your leaders "weren't real conservatives".  Except for Reagan, you just pretend a totally different guy was president from 1981 to 1989.  One who didn't give amnesty to illegals and tripled the deficit.  

Me, I'd love to have the Bill Clinton economy back.  I'd love to have the JFK economy back.


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
Click to expand...


Able bodied adults make up 5% of food stamp recipients. Most recipients are children, elderly or disabled people. 

A 70% reduction of that 5% means that the overall reduction was 3.5% reduction in the total number of food stamp recipients, not anywhere close to the 80% claimed in the OP.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Able bodied adults make up 5% of food stamp recipients. Most recipients are children, elderly or disabled people.
> 
> A 70% reduction of that 5% means that the overall reduction was 3.5% reduction in the total number of food stamp recipients, not anywhere close to the 80% claimed in the OP.
Click to expand...

Oh look...the Canadian pretending once again to have a clue about the United States. 

Sweetie - you claim a ton of shit but never back it up with links, quotes, etc. You're a pathological liar. Furthermore, even if your false claims were true, getting *70% of abled-bodied adults* off of food stamps is epic.

Finally, if you actually gave a damn about anyone other than yourself, _you_ would provide food for the children and the elderly. But you're a typical greedy, selfish socialist.


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If P@triot is interested in why his opinion is incorrect, he could start by asking how other countries, with very much smaller tax bases, can afford to educate people for free.
> 
> 
> 
> Basic economics for Adolf here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's another way to identify RWNJ Pootarian traitors. They're stupid, they don't want to learn and they foolishly believe they know everything there is to know about everything.
Click to expand...

Snowflake, you just got _smoked_. Notice that your last two posts were nothing but personal attacks while my last 10 were indisputable facts about economics? Because - like all left-wing ideologues - you're clueless about even the most basics when it comes to finance, economics, business, etc. You're all ideology, facts be damn.


----------



## P@triot

This thread started with an article about the astounding drop in food stamp recipients in Maine thanks to work requirements. It continues with similar results in Alabama...


> Participation in the food stamp program *plunged by 85%* in 13 counties in Alabama after officials required that recipients must work, look for work, or get approved job training, a state agency says.


These 13 Counties Started Work Requirements for Food Stamps. Here’s What Happened.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> This thread started with an article about the astounding drop in food stamp recipients in Maine thanks to work requirements. It continues with similar results in Alabama...



Yeah, I think the fact that we finally recovered from Bush's shit economy had more to do with that... not to worry, The Orange Shitgibbon will get those numbers right back up.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's a chart even Poodle can understand... 







Now part of that is that waivers allowing able bodied adults to qualify have expired nationally, but part of that is the expanding economy.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread started with an article about the astounding drop in food stamp recipients in Maine thanks to work requirements. It continues with similar results in Alabama...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think the fact that we finally recovered from Bush's shit economy had more to do with that... not to worry, The Orange Shitgibbon will get those numbers right back up.
Click to expand...

Dumb ass...that would mean food stamp recipients would be down across the *entire* nation. Good Lord you are _stupid_. When you're going to try to deny reality - think it through a little, ya dimwit.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Here's a chart even Poodle can understand...


Yep...and you, poodle, can understand that it peaked three years into Barack Insane Obama's presidency (after he had EVERY policy he desired inacted - like Obamacare, finance reform, stimulus, etc.). Thanks for playing, poodle!


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Able bodied adults make up 5% of food stamp recipients. Most recipients are children, elderly or disabled people.
> 
> A 70% reduction of that 5% means that the overall reduction was 3.5% reduction in the total number of food stamp recipients, not anywhere close to the 80% claimed in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look...the Canadian pretending once again to have a clue about the United States.
> 
> Sweetie - you claim a ton of shit but never back it up with links, quotes, etc. You're a pathological liar. Furthermore, even if your false claims were true, getting *70% of abled-bodied adults* off of food stamps is epic.
> 
> Finally, if you actually gave a damn about anyone other than yourself, _you_ would provide food for the children and the elderly. But you're a typical greedy, selfish socialist.
Click to expand...


I used your links and did the math. You seem to be math challenged. 

I worked and supported my family, putting food on my table, for more than 40 years. I also bought and donated food to my church's food drive and other charities which provide services to the poor. 

Your food stamp program is a hugely expensive waste of resources and should be eliminated.  

Americans always do such a poor job on social services because they want the programs to be expensive and unwieldy. Then they can point this out and say "See. It's not working". Let's cut it. 

There are efficient and simple ways of delivering social programs, but you're too worried someone might get something they don't deserve so you overload the application and administration process, making it much more expensive than it needs to be. 

Healthcare is a prime example. 30% of your costs are administrative. This compares with 7% in Canada. Some European countries are better. I have no paperwork to complete or copays. Easy peasey. You have preapprovals, copays and forms to complete, and doctors hire third party billing companies to complete it all. My doctor's receptionist does his paperwork. 

The devil is in the details. As are the costs.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> I worked and supported my family, putting food on my table, for more than 40 years. I also bought and donated food to my church's food drive and other charities which provide services to the poor.


Well done Dragonlady - I salute you. _That_ is how society is supposed to help those in need - through charity. *Not* through government.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> There are efficient and simple ways of delivering social programs, *but you're too worried someone might get something they don't deserve* so you overload the application and administration process, making it much more expensive than it needs to be.


Not at all. I'm happy to give to charity. The problem with our programs is that the left is incompetent. The left created Social Security, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare. All are insolvent. All are catastrophic failures. All are 100% unconstitutional. All have lead to this nation being $20 _trillion_ in debt.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Healthcare is a prime example. 30% of your costs are administrative. This compares with 7% in Canada. Some European countries are better. I have no paperwork to complete or copays. Easy peasey. You have preapprovals, copays and forms to complete, and doctors hire third party billing companies to complete it all. My doctor's receptionist does his paperwork.


And you wait in line so long for basic healthcare, that you end up dying. Meanwhile, I get the *best* healthcare on the world the same day I call. Wealthy Americans and politicians don't fly to Canada for healthcare, my dear.

'Danny Millions' Williams heads south for heart surgery | Toronto Star


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Dumb ass...that would mean food stamp recipients would be down across the *entire* nation. Good Lord you are _stupid_. When you're going to try to deny reality - think it through a little, ya dimwit.



Except they did, if you bothered to read my next post. 



P@triot said:


> Yep...and you, poodle, can understand that it peaked three years into Barack Insane Obama's presidency (after he had EVERY policy he desired inacted - like Obamacare, finance reform, stimulus, etc.). Thanks for playing, poodle!



You mean three years into Bush's recession, don't you? Not that Obama got anywhere near what he desired to get us out of Bush's recession. The Stimulus was only a third of what he requested. 

In fact, Food Stamp usage rose more under BUsh than Obama, even if you want to be generous and blame the rise after 2008's recession (you know, the recession that happened because Bush let the Banksters run rampant over the working class).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And you wait in line so long for basic healthcare, that you end up dying. Meanwhile, I get the *best* healthcare on the world the same day I call. Wealthy Americans and politicians don't fly to Canada for healthcare, my dear.



Okay, here's the problem with that. Besides the fact that I doubt you are wealthy (wealthy people wouldn't spend their time repeating shit they heard on Hate Radio like they are original ideas) the thing is, most Americans don't have access to the care wealthy people have. 

Frankly, that a Rich Canadian can get health care here that I can't after I've paid both taxes AND insurance, is kind of fucked up. 

Oh, that, and it doesn't happen. 

Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States

_To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home._


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wait in line so long for basic healthcare, that you end up dying. Meanwhile, I get the *best* healthcare on the world the same day I call. Wealthy Americans and politicians don't fly to Canada for healthcare, my dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, here's the problem with that. Besides the fact that I doubt you are wealthy
Click to expand...

I'm not wealthy. Never said I was. Yet another illustration of your reading comprehension problems.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I'm not wealthy. Never said I was. Yet another illustration of your reading comprehension problems.



If you aren't wealthy, you can't get the best healthcare. 

You can get the health care that your insurance is willing to pay for. If they decide that they don't want to pay for your treatment, you won't get it.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Healthcare is a prime example. 30% of your costs are administrative. This compares with 7% in Canada.


You must be so proud of your Canadian healthcare. In fact, I think you should call this poor girl's mother and tell her how you visit the website of _other_ nations to rave about how incredible Canadian healthcare is. Let me know what she says...

Dying Teen's Final Wish Exposes Pure Evil Of Socialized Medicine


----------



## Dekster

P@triot said:


> What an _exceptional_ blueprint for education....
> 
> *At this college, the tuition is nowhere near the $150,000 to $200,000 for a four-year degree that the elite top-tier universities are charging. At College of the Ozarks, tuition is free. That’s right. The school’s nearly 1,400 students don’t pay a dime in tuition during their time there.
> 
> So what’s the catch? All the college’s students—without exception—pay for their education by working 15 hours a week on campus. The jobs are plentiful because this school—just a few miles from Branson, a popular tourist destination—operates its own mill, a power plant, fire station, four-star restaurant and lodge, museum and dairy farm.
> 
> Some students from low-income homes also spend 12 weeks of summer on campus working to cover their room and board. Part of the students’ grade point average is determined by how they do on the job, and those who shirk their work duties are tossed out. The jobs range from campus security to cooking and cleaning hotel rooms, tending the hundreds of cattle, building new dorms and buildings, to operating the power plant.*
> 
> This College Takes Hard Work Seriously -- And Kids Want to Go There



I get free Zinnia seeds from them in their fundraising letters.


----------



## P@triot

Definitely the blueprint for prosperity...


> All in all, Musk puts in about 85 to 100 hours a week


He puts in unimaginable hours (just like Bill Gates, just like Steve Jobs, etc.). I know for a fact that at one point, he was sleeping on the factory floor at Telsa. He was doing 18 hour days trying to figure out a problem they were experiencing.


> Well, as Inc. reported, the CEO...*sleeps around six hours every night*.


That is why Elon Musk and those like him makes hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

Elon Musk runs two huge companies by breaking his day into 5-minute slots


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You must be so proud of your Canadian healthcare. In fact, I think you should call this poor girl's mother and tell her how you visit the website of _other_ nations to rave about how incredible Canadian healthcare is. Let me know what she says...



18 year olds with Luekemia rarely have happy results. 

We can also talk about Nataline Sarkiysan, who was denied a liver transplant by Cigna because Cigna called it "experimental" 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/health/views/06chen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Cigna went on to pay its CEO a 9 figure retirement salary, which I'm sure you think is totally deserved.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be so proud of your Canadian healthcare. In fact, I think you should call this poor girl's mother and tell her how you visit the website of _other_ nations to rave about how incredible Canadian healthcare is. Let me know what she says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 year olds with Luekemia rarely have happy results.
Click to expand...

Socialized nations with socialized medicine *never* have happy results.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Socialized nations with socialized medicine *never* have happy results.



Except that they 

Live Longer on average.
Have a lower infant mortality rate on average
Have a much lower rate of bankruptcy due to medical crisis than we do.
Only spend 8-10% of their GDP on health care compared to the 18% we spend. 

What offends you is limiting resources on need rather than by ability to pay.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialized nations with socialized medicine *never* have happy results.
> 
> 
> 
> What offends you is limiting resources
Click to expand...

You're damn right! Limiting resources offends the hell out of me. Some dillhole in government abusing his power and playing God - deciding for others how much food, money, and healthcare they get offends the hell out of me.

We're a meritocracy. Deal with it sweetie. Either earn it or accept that you didn't.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Except that they Live Longer on average. Have a lower infant mortality rate on average


If any of that were even remotely true - people wouldn't come from all over the world to receive healthcare here in the U.S. Mexicans wouldn't sneak into our nation.

Here is a hospital in Cuba:


 

And here is a hospital in the U.S.:


 

'Nought said snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not wealthy. Never said I was. Yet another illustration of your reading comprehension problems.
> 
> 
> 
> If you aren't wealthy, you can't get the best healthcare.
Click to expand...

Want to bet? Before Obamacare, I had a cadillac healthcare plan. Cost me $172 per month for my _entire_ family, never pay more than $20 for a medication, and had absolutely *no* cap. If it cost us $60 million for a healthcare issue, the $60 million was covered in full. Thanks for playing.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> You can get the health care that your insurance is willing to pay for. *If they decide that they don't want to pay for your treatment, you won't get it*.


You have to love liberal "logic". In post #312 Joey whines like a toddler that someone else decides your healthcare and that's why it sucks. But then in post #318 he brags that socialized medicine is sooooo much better because someone else decides your healthcare. 


JoeB131 said:


> What offends you is *limiting resources* on need rather than by ability to pay.


Yes folks...progressives really are this stupid. Talk to them long enough and they will contradict their own position _every_ time.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You're damn right! Limiting resources offends the hell out of me. Some dillhole in government abusing his power and playing God - deciding for others how much food, money, and healthcare they get offends the hell out of me.



But the One Percent doing it so they can buy more dressage horses, that doesn't bother you in the least. 

Here's the thing. We can vote that dillhole in the government out if we don't like the way he's doing his job. 

So let's review. We both agree, there are limited amounts of money to go around for health care. True, the US ends up spending twice as much as most other industrialized countries and gets much worse results. So how should that be limited.

By ability to pay, or by medical need?  

Because 11% of what we spend in this country, after you take out the profits taken by Big Pharma, Insurance and Medical, is spent prolonging the lives of the terminally ill.  They are going to die, regardless, but we bankrupt their families stretching it out. 



P@triot said:


> We're a meritocracy. Deal with it sweetie. Either earn it or accept that you didn't.



Or not. Sorry, I don't think we should let poor children die because their daddies don't earn enough or walked out on their moms. 

I'm sorry that in your fucked up, Ayn Rand reading world, you do. I honestly have to wonder what happened to you as a child to make you such a truly awful person. 



P@triot said:


> If any of that were even remotely true - people wouldn't come from all over the world to receive healthcare here in the U.S. Mexicans wouldn't sneak into our nation.



First, medical tourism is  myth. That a rich person can fly here and get treatment that most Americans don't have access to is nothing to be proud of. 

Second, comparing us to third world countries is hardly anything to be proud of. That Cuba after 50 years of economic warfare being waged on it STILL has a lower infant mortality rate than we do is something we ought to be embarrassed about.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Want to bet? Before Obamacare, I had a cadillac healthcare plan. Cost me $172 per month for my _entire_ family, never pay more than $20 for a medication, and had absolutely *no* cap. If it cost us $60 million for a healthcare issue, the $60 million was covered in full. Thanks for playing.



Amazing it's always the Right Wingers who have suddenly suffered horribly under ObamaCare. 

Get used to it, buddy, it's here to stay. 



P@triot said:


> You have to love liberal "logic". In post #312 Joey whines like a toddler that someone else decides your healthcare and that's why it sucks. But then in post #318 he brags that socialized medicine is sooooo much better because someone else decides your healthcare.



Yes, you clearly miss the point. 

Someone deciding not to pay for a treatment because it won't change the outcome... I can understand that. 

Someone deciding not to pay for a treatment because Cigna needs to pay their CEO a nine-figure separation package... meh, not so much.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> But the One Percent doing it so they can buy more dressage horses, that doesn't bother you in the least.


The 1% doesn't control resources, snowflake. They have absolutely no control over my money, my assets, my healthcare, etc. The _only_ entity that possibly could is government. Which is why you root for them despite their appalling history of corruption.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



Maine did not reduce the number of people on food stamps by 80%.

You are profoundly retarded.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing. We can vote that dillhole in the government out if we don't like the way he's doing his job.


Really? Ok snowflake - do it. Do it today. Vote him out of the White House by 11:00 p.m. this evening. If you can't (and I assure you, you can't) then you have just been exposed as the pathological liar that you are.

Here's the *real* thing  - I can _choose_ to not do business with any company in the world. If I don't like McDonald's, I don't have to buy their burgers. I refuse to purchase a single thing from Target and have convinced all of my family and friends as well.

But I'm permanently stuck with the U.S. government. Barack Insane Obama was a disgusting anti-constitutional marxist. I wanted no part of him. Yet I was stuck with him for 8 years. I haven't even been stuck with Target for 8 minutes. I told them to go fuck themselves two years ago and that was that. I've been stuck with Nancy Pelosi's corrupted ass for 30 years.

And the truth is - that's exactly why you want _everything_ done through government. Because you want to control people at the barrel of a gun. You're a typical Benito Mussolini little man - only without the ambition and the talent to ascend to his level (thank God).


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> Maine did not reduce the number of people on food stamps by 80%. You are profoundly retarded.


Your denial of reality has run its course here on USMB, NY Crabby Queer. Your insistence on pushing idiotic propaganda - likewise.

Since you can't accept video, documentation, government statistics, etc. - it's time for you to move along. I'm sure there is a left-wing fascist "Antifa" site just dying for another useful idiot such as yourself.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maine did not reduce the number of people on food stamps by 80%. You are profoundly retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of reality has run its course here on USMB, NY Crabby Queer. Your insistence on pushing idiotic propaganda - likewise.
> 
> Since you can't accept video, documentation, government statistics, etc. - it's time for you to move along. I'm sure there is a left-wing fascist "Antifa" site just dying for another useful idiot such as yourself.
Click to expand...



Ok, you tell us.

How many Maine residents were on food stamps before this regulation.

How many are NOW on Food Stamps?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So let's review. We both agree, there are limited amounts of money to go around for health care. True, the US ends up spending twice as much as most other industrialized countries and gets much worse results. So how should that be limited.
> 
> By ability to pay, or by medical need?


Yes...let's review. After denying that there would be "Death Panels" under the left's utopian view of healthcare, you are now acknowledging that is _exactly_ what will occur under left-wing idiocy.

So how should limited resources be limited? By a person's ability to earn it. A fuck'n heroin addict shouldn't receive healthcare on my dime. A fuck'n meth head shouldn't receive healthcare over my children. They earned their misery - they deserve every bit of it (and worse). Conversely, I've earned cadillac healthcare for myself and my family.


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> Ok, you tell us.


I don't have to tell you - the government of Maine already did.


NYcarbineer said:


> How many Maine residents were on food stamps before this regulation.


80% _more _


NYcarbineer said:


> How many are NOW on Food Stamps?


80% _less 

_


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Get used to it, buddy, it's here to stay.


The American people disagree with you, snowflake (as usual). It's already been repealed in the House. Just waiting for it to be repealed in the Senate. And if it is - you can best your ass *President Trump* will sign it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, I don't think we should let poor children die because their daddies don't earn enough or walked out on their moms.


No...instead you believe we should *force* wealthy children to die as a punishment for their fathers getting a good education, working hard, and becoming captains of industry. Idiot.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So let's review. We both agree, there are limited amounts of money to go around for health care. True, the US ends up spending twice as much as most other industrialized countries and gets much worse results. So how should that be limited.
> 
> By ability to pay, or by medical need?


This was the headline in the London Daily Telegraph today. Over 1 million people per day in England can't even see a general practitioner. It would be absolutely comical - SNL skit like comical - if it wasn't so tragic. And this is the type of *failed* healthcare that LWNJ's want to bring here to America.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> he 1% doesn't control resources, snowflake. They have absolutely no control over my money, my assets, my healthcare, etc. The _only_ entity that possibly could is government. Which is why you root for them despite their appalling history of corruption.



The only reason why the government is "corrupt" is because they've bought out one party. 

The beauty of Republicans. They complain how government is the problem, and when they get in charge, they truly fuck things up.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> This was the headline in the London Daily Telegraph today. Over 1 million people per day in England can't even see a general practitioner. It would be absolutely comical - SNL skit like comical - if it wasn't so tragic. And this is the type of *failed* healthcare that LWNJ's want to bring here to America.



How many Americans can't see a GP because they don't have one? 

so instead of cherry picking headlines, let's look at statistics. 

What the NHS 'A&E crisis' looks like in comparison to America's private healthcare

That makes it sounds like American healthcare is faster, but there is a statistical detail that is very important here: The 93.4% number for the NHS is for the _complete treatment of all patients arriving for emergency care_. The 95% number for the US is the _average wait time_ for a patient to see a doctor.

In other words, Americans get to see a doctor after a three-hour wait. Brits will have seen a doctor and been treated within four hours.

If you want quick emergency care, the UK is still the place to be.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No...instead you believe we should *force* wealthy children to die as a punishment for their fathers getting a good education, working hard, and becoming captains of industry. Idiot.



Okay, let's look at that.  By your logic, the rich should be able to harvest transplant organs from the poor because they are more successful, then? 



P@triot said:


> Yes...let's review. After denying that there would be "Death Panels" under the left's utopian view of healthcare, you are now acknowledging that is _exactly_ what will occur under left-wing idiocy.



No more than the board at Cigna that decided not to pay for Nataline Sarkisyan's liver transplant was a "Death Panel"  This would be AFTER her father paid for insurance, by the way.  



P@triot said:


> So how should limited resources be limited? By a person's ability to earn it. A fuck'n heroin addict shouldn't receive healthcare on my dime. A fuck'n meth head shouldn't receive healthcare over my children. They earned their misery - they deserve every bit of it (and worse). Conversely, I've earned cadillac healthcare for myself and my family.



Why, because you are a little suckup who fetches coffee for the Big Man?  

Look, I'm not sure what happened to you at an early age where you lack any humanity or compassion.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get used to it, buddy, it's here to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> The American people disagree with you, snowflake (as usual). It's already been repealed in the House. Just waiting for it to be repealed in the Senate. And if it is - you can best your ass *President Trump* will sign it.
Click to expand...


Naw, it's going to die in the senate.... Too many Republican Senators heard from their redneck constituents who just figured out the ACA was the same thing as ObamaCare.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's how the UK compares to the US 

United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

Hospital beds >Per 1,000 people 
UK: *4.2 per 1,000 people* Ranked 33th. *27% more*than United States 
*US 3.3 per 1,000 people* Ranked 37th.

Life expectancy at birth, total >
UK  Years *80.75* Ranked 22nd. *3% more* than United States
US   *78.64* Ranked 40th.

Quality of health care system >Cost 
*UK 79.76* Ranked 7th. *74% more* than United States

Infant mortality rate > Total 
*UK: 4.62 deaths/1,000 live births* Ranked 184th.
US  *6.06 deaths/1,000 live births* Ranked 171st. *31% more* than United Kingdom

Expenditure per capita > Current 
UK - *2,899.7$* Ranked 18th. 
*US - 6,096.2$* Ranked 1st. *2 times more*than United Kingdom

So let's review, shall we.  

We spend twice as much per capita, but we don't live as long, we have more of our infants die in infancy, and we pretty much trail the UK in every metric. 

But... um, Eek, Socialism! Poodle live in mortal fear a poor person will get the same quality of care he gets.


----------



## P@triot

This is how socialized medicine _always_ ends. This family raised $1.6 million and would like to take their baby to the U.S. for treatment. It won't cost the U.K. government a dime. And yet they are holding the baby hostage and will soon execute the defenseless little baby.

They can't use cost as an excuse as they aren't footing the bill. So what is the deal? It's the same deal it always is with the left - power and control over the helpless and defenseless. They want to execute this baby just to make sure the people understand who is in control (hint: it's *not* the parents as it _should_ be).

UK Death Panel Rules Baby Should ‘Die With Dignity,’ History Teaches Brutal Lesson of What Comes Next


----------



## P@triot

We're barely half way though the year and already 2 million people have lost their health insurance coverage while the U.S. is still operating under Obamacare. And that doesn't include the 10 million people who lost their health insurance when the bill was first passed or those that have lost it every year since.

Healthcare: Uninsured U.S. Adults Increase by Two Million


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> This is how socialized medicine _always_ ends. This family raised $1.6 million and would like to take their baby to the U.S. for treatment. It won't cost the U.K. government a dime. And yet they are holding the baby hostage and will soon execute the defenseless little baby.



It's going to die, anyway....  

As opposed to Nataline Sarkisyan, who was given a 50% chance of living 6 months with a liver transplant Cigna refused to pay for AFTER her father paid premiums.  

This baby is blind, deaf, possibly brain dead, and will die within seconds of being taken off a respirator.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how socialized medicine _always_ ends. This family raised $1.6 million and would like to take their baby to the U.S. for treatment. It won't cost the U.K. government a dime. And yet they are holding the baby hostage and will soon execute the defenseless little baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's going to die, anyway...
Click to expand...

Yeah...that's the idiotic way it _always_ starts with fascists. They try to justify government executions of citizens who can't serve the state by saying insanely stupid shit like "they are going to die anyway". Guess what, slick? We're *all* going to die anyway. Which means you just created a justification and precedence for the left-wing totalitarian state to execute anyone at any time for any reason.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yeah...that's the idiotic way it _always_ starts with fascists. They try to justify government executions of citizens who can't serve the state by saying insanely stupid shit like "they are going to die anyway". Guess what, slick? We're *all* going to die anyway. Which means you just created a justification and precedence for the left-wing totalitarian state to execute anyone at any time for any reason.



Are you some kind of retard, Poodle? Or just dishonest. 

Okay- Let's compare.  Charlie Gard- Has no chance of recovery, is blind, deaf, paralyzed and possibly brain dead. Can't breathe without a respirator. HIs defect is on the cellular level. 

Nataline Sarkisyan- Had at least a 50% chance of living six months with a liver transplant CIGNA denied her. 

One decision was made on solid science, the other was made on pure greed of a big corporation. 

Guess which one you support.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's the idiotic way it _always_ starts with fascists. They try to justify government executions of citizens who can't serve the state by saying insanely stupid shit like "they are going to die anyway". Guess what, slick? We're *all* going to die anyway. Which means you just created a justification and precedence for the left-wing totalitarian state to execute anyone at any time for any reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard, Poodle? Or just dishonest.
> 
> Okay- Let's compare.  Charlie Gard- Has no chance of recovery, is blind, deaf, paralyzed and possibly brain dead. Can't breathe without a respirator. HIs defect is on the cellular level.
> 
> Nataline Sarkisyan- Had at least a 50% chance of living six months with a liver transplant CIGNA denied her.
> 
> One decision was made on solid science, the other was made on pure greed of a big corporation.
> 
> Guess which one you support.
Click to expand...

No stupid....one was made by pure _choice_ (Natalie Sarkisyan who _chose_ her plan with her insurance company) and one was made at the barrel of a gun by a near-totalitarian regime.

The more you try to defend your idiotic position, the dumber you look. No government should _ever_ decide for a person when they should die. Nobody deserves that kind of power over another human.

P.S. - I challenged you a week ago to vote Donald Trump out of office after you claimed you could do it. I gave you 24 hours. A week later, he is _still_ President of the United States. But guess what? Literally anyone in the world can terminate their policy with CIGNA within minutes. You lose, snowflake.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No stupid....one was made by pure _choice_ (Natalie Sarkisyan who _chose_ her plan with her insurance company) and one was made at the barrel of a gun by a near-totalitarian regime.



First, Nataline didn't choose her plan. Her father didn't choose her plan. Her father's EMPLOYER choose her plan.  So you got that one wrong. 

Dude, did some government person tell you that you couldn't pick your nose when you were five? 



P@triot said:


> No government should _ever_ decide for a person when they should die.



But don't you wingnuts support capital punishment?  In any case, the government isn't deciding when Little Charlie Ragdoll is going to die. His shitty genetics made that decision for him. 

The only question is, how much resources are you going to expend prolonging the inevitable. 

Are you some kind of retard?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> First, Nataline didn't choose her plan. Her father didn't choose her plan. Her father's EMPLOYER choose her plan.  So you got that one wrong.


And her father _chose_ to be on that plan. He wasn't forced onto it, you dimwit. He could have gone on his wife's plan. Or chosen a self-paid plan. Or gotten a supplemental plan.

Cuba is waiting for you, cupcake. You're refusal to go speaks volumes.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No government should _ever_ decide for a person when they should die.
> 
> 
> 
> But don't you wingnuts support capital punishment?
Click to expand...

Capital punishment is the individual criminal _choosing_ their own death because they chose to engage in heinous crimes.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And her father _chose_ to be on that plan. He wasn't forced onto it, you dimwit. He could have gone on his wife's plan. Or chosen a self-paid plan. Or gotten a supplemental plan.



Or he could have expected them to keep their promises. 

So let me get this straight. The government refuses to keep a baby-corpse alive, that's bad because "gummit".. 

But a big greedy corporation cheats a family and let's a teenage girl die of a treatable disease, and you're good with that because, um "Freedom". 

(Note, "Freedom" means those with money fucking over those without money. Which Poodle is good with because some day he hope to have money.) 



P@triot said:


> Capital punishment is the individual criminal _choosing_ their own death because they chose to engage in heinous crimes.



Um, except we've sent 154 people to death row for crimes they didn't commit.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Or he could have expected them to keep their promises.


They did keep their promise. To the letter of their contractual agreements. The father failed to get a supplemental plan. That's on him.


JoeB131 said:


> So let me get this straight. The government refuses to keep a baby-corpse alive, that's bad because "gummit"..


Well...it's a little deeper than that...you partisan hack. The parents aren't even asking the government of the UK to keep their child alive. They are simply asking them to leave him alone so they can come to the U.S. for treatment. Why would the government refuse such a simple request being that they would no longer be on the hook for the cost of the child? Oh yeah - they want power and control over life & death in society. It gives them the absolute power they desire.


JoeB131 said:


> But a big greedy corporation cheats a family and let's a teenage girl die of a treatable disease, and you're good with that because, um "Freedom".


The corporation didn't cheat anyone, you partisan hack. And yes - that is a small price to pay for freedom. The girl died naturally from a disease. She wasn't ordered executed by the corporation.


JoeB131 said:


> (Note, "Freedom" means those with money fucking over those without money. Which Poodle is good with because some day he hope to have money.)


*Note - little kitty here is insanely envious of people who are more successful than him. Therefore, he wants them to "pay" by having government control them and redistribute their wealth to society.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So let me get this straight. The government refuses to keep a baby-corpse alive, that's bad because "gummit".. But a big greedy corporation cheats a family and let's a teenage girl die of a treatable disease, and you're good with that because, um "Freedom".



Tell me something kitty - when was the last time a corporation engaged in "unthinkable atrocities"? When is the last time a corporation unleashed chemical weapons against their customers?

Syria war: 'unthinkable atrocities' documented in report on Aleppo

(Seriously kitty - the next tie you get something "straight" will be the _first_ time you _ever_ got anything straight)


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So let me get this straight. The government refuses to keep a baby-corpse alive, that's bad because "gummit".. But a big greedy corporation cheats a family and let's a teenage girl die of a treatable disease, and you're good with that because, um "Freedom".



Tell me something kitty - when was the last time a corporation engaged in a "Great Purge"? When is the last time a corporation murdered millions of their customers ?

Great Purge - Wikipedia

(Seriously kitty - the next tie you get something "straight" will be the _first_ time you _ever_ got anything straight)


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So let me get this straight. The government refuses to keep a baby-corpse alive, that's bad because "gummit".. But a big greedy corporation cheats a family and let's a teenage girl die of a treatable disease, and you're good with that because, um "Freedom".



Tell me something kitty - who is carrying out these atrocities - German corporations or the German government?


(Seriously kitty - the next tie you get something "straight" will be the _first_ time you _ever_ got anything straight)


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well...it's a little deeper than that...you partisan hack. The parents aren't even asking the government of the UK to keep their child alive. They are simply asking them to leave him alone so they can come to the U.S. for treatment. Why would the government refuse such a simple request being that they would no longer be on the hook for the cost of the child? Oh yeah - they want power and control over life & death in society. It gives them the absolute power they desire.



OR they realize the system doesn't work if everyone can just walk away from it and use whatever quack medicine someone is willing to take their money to deliver.  Then you end up with stuff like cancer cures made of apricots, which works about as well as you'd expect.  



P@triot said:


> The corporation didn't cheat anyone, you partisan hack. And yes - that is a small price to pay for freedom. The girl died naturally from a disease. She wasn't ordered executed by the corporation.



Charlie the flesh doll is dying from a natural disease.. so I'm not seeing your problem here other than your battered housewife syndrome for capitalism. 

Oh, if Charlie the flesh doll had been a Cigna patient, they'd have cut him off a long time ago long before the religious nuts heard about him.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Tell me something kitty - when was the last time a corporation engaged in "unthinkable atrocities"? When is the last time a corporation unleashed chemical weapons against their customers?



No, corporations just instigate governments to do those things... that doesn't make it any better. 

So let's look at some unthinkable attrocities commited by your beloved corporations. 

Tobacco- Kills 480,000 AMericans every year, more than World War II.  

Asbestos - Kills 15,000 Americans a year. 

The GUn Industry - kills 33,000 Americans a year.  



P@triot said:


> Tell me something kitty - who is carrying out these atrocities - German corporations or the German government?



And who supported putting Hilter into power.  Maybe you should read up on the roll of the Krupp family in Hitler's rise to power and how it used forced labor to make a profit.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something kitty - when was the last time a corporation engaged in "unthinkable atrocities"? When is the last time a corporation unleashed chemical weapons against their customers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, corporations just instigate governments to do those things... that doesn't make it any better. So let's look at some unthinkable attrocities commited by your beloved corporations.
> 
> Tobacco- Kills 480,000 AMericans every year, more than World War II.
Click to expand...

Wait....dumb assholes like you *choose* to smoke and then you want to blame the tobacco company? Tell me something snowflake - did the corporation every mandate that people need to smoke? I've been on this Earth for many decades and have never taken a single puff. Not one. Ever. So how is it that I managed to escape the "evil" tobacco corporations?

Oh wait...that's right...I wasn't a dumb asshole like you progressives.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something kitty - when was the last time a corporation engaged in "unthinkable atrocities"? When is the last time a corporation unleashed chemical weapons against their customers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, corporations just instigate governments to do those things... that doesn't make it any better.
> 
> So let's look at some unthinkable attrocities commited by your beloved corporations. The GUn Industry - kills 33,000 Americans a year.
Click to expand...

Uh....no it doesn't. In the history of the world, a gun has *never* killed _anyone_. Why do you feel the need to lie in every post? Oh wait - that's right - because you're a fascist who desires to have government control when people take a breath, live or die, and serve the state.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Wait....dumb assholes like you *choose* to smoke and then you want to blame the tobacco company? Tell me something snowflake - did the corporation every mandate that people need to smoke? I've been on this Earth for many decades and have never taken a single puff. Not one. Ever. So how is it that I managed to escape the "evil" tobacco corporations?



I don't smoke either, guy.  BUt the point that you don't seem to get is that when the government sued the tobacco companies, we found out that they were both marketing to Children and spiking their product to make it more addictive.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....dumb assholes like you *choose* to smoke and then you want to blame the tobacco company? Tell me something snowflake - did the corporation every mandate that people need to smoke? I've been on this Earth for many decades and have never taken a single puff. Not one. Ever. So how is it that I managed to escape the "evil" tobacco corporations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't smoke either, guy.  BUt the point that you don't seem to get is that when the government sued the tobacco companies, we found out that they were both marketing to Children and spiking their product to make it more addictive.
Click to expand...

And? Isn't that the job of a corporation, kitty? To market their product and make it more desirable? At the end of the day, you still have complete and total free will as to whether or not you do business with a corporation. Unless you're telling us that you are so weak-minded that your incapable of resisting a little advertising.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And? Isn't that the job of a corporation, kitty? To market their product and make it more desirable? At the end of the day, you still have complete and total free will as to whether or not you do business with a corporation. Unless you're telling us that you are so weak-minded that your incapable of resisting a little advertising.



guy, when we have real choice, let me know.  Fact is, invidual insurance is impossible to buy, and you are usually stuck with whatever shit your employer gets because Cigna compensated the HR Slugs with too many free lunches. 

Again, when you have to fight with an insurance company to get treatment after you've paid them, then you can come back to me and talk about how wonderful the insurance industry is. 

Fuck em.  The sooner we abolish these companies, the better.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to tell you - the government of Maine already did.
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Maine residents were on food stamps before this regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 80% _more _
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many are NOW on Food Stamps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 80% _less
> 
> _
Click to expand...


You still pushing this lie?  lol, behold another of the Ineducables.


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> You still pushing this lie?  lol, behold another of the Ineducables.


So you're calling the government "liars"? They have the data reality-denier. I know it's hard for you when the facts don't align with everything you were duped into believing but it doesn't change the facts.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still pushing this lie?  lol, behold another of the Ineducables.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're calling the government "liars"? They have the data reality-denier. I know it's hard for you when the facts don't align with everything you were duped into believing but it doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...


I'm calling you stupid.  It was already explained to you.  They did not reduce Maine food stamp recipients by 80%


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still pushing this lie?  lol, behold another of the Ineducables.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're calling the government "liars"? They have the data reality-denier. I know it's hard for you when the facts don't align with everything you were duped into believing but it doesn't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you stupid.  It was already explained to you.  They did not reduce Maine food stamp recipients by 80%
Click to expand...

Yes, they really did, reality denier. If only you could do basic math, you would realize that they absolutely reduced the recipients by 80%.


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still pushing this lie?  lol, behold another of the Ineducables.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're calling the government "liars"? They have the data reality-denier. I know it's hard for you when the facts don't align with everything you were duped into believing but it doesn't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm calling you stupid.  It was already explained to you.  They did not reduce Maine food stamp recipients by 80%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they really did, reality denier. If only you could do basic math, you would realize that they absolutely reduced the recipients by 80%.
Click to expand...


I did the math.  In 2014 there were 209,000 Maine residents on food stamps.

SNAP Benefits Recipients in Maine

If you are correct, then there should only be 42,000 Maine residents now on food stamps.

Prove it and I'll stand corrected.


----------



## sartre play

BuckToothMoron said:


> Repeal the 17th amendment, let states deal with their social issues, education, healthcare as they see fit. In that manner, if one system fails in one state, the others will be unaffected. States will learn from watching 50 different systems which systems are effective.


As we do business across state lines every day, can you see where it could cause major problems?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

sartre play said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal the 17th amendment, let states deal with their social issues, education, healthcare as they see fit. In that manner, if one system fails in one state, the others will be unaffected. States will learn from watching 50 different systems which systems are effective.
> 
> 
> 
> As we do business across state lines every day, can you see where it could cause major problems?
Click to expand...


Problems/ issues are going to be inherent in any system. What problems do you for see?


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> I did the math.  In 2014 there were 209,000 Maine residents on food stamps.
> 
> SNAP Benefits Recipients in Maine
> 
> If you are correct, then there should only be 42,000 Maine residents now on food stamps. Prove it and I'll stand corrected.


You just admitted you *lied*. You don't know the current number of residents on food stamps. Therefore, how do you know that it's not 42,000 or less? Every time you post, you make stuff up and attempt to pass it off as "fact" to everyone.


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> I did the math.  In 2014 there were 209,000 Maine residents on food stamps.
> 
> SNAP Benefits Recipients in Maine


This is what happens when a left-wing partisan hack comments on a subject matter before reading it / watching it / listening to it / etc. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Here are some screen shots. But you _really_ need to watch the video in its entirety before commenting again.


----------



## P@triot

There is one fundamental, universal characteristic of the left - they hate choice. Because choice means they can't *control* others. There is absolutely no reason not to give parents of students the choice of what school for their children to attend - other than it strips the fascists of the control they deeply desire.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> There is one fundamental, universal characteristic of the left - they hate choice. Because choice means they can't *control* others. There is absolutely no reason not to give parents of students the choice of what school for their children to attend - other than it strips the fascists of the control they deeply desire.



Yawn, guy, the problem is, school choice has just as many failures as successes.  

Researcher 'stunned' by high rate of voucher school failures in Milwaukee

Forty-one percent of all private schools that participated in the Milwaukee private school voucher program between 1991 and 2015 failed, according to a new study by a voucher school proponent who said he was stunned by the findings.

“I do not mean failed as in they did not deliver academically, I mean failed as in they no longer exist,” University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Professor Michael Ford wrote. “These 102 schools either closed after having their voucher revenue cut off by the Department of Public Instruction, or simply shut their doors. The failure rate for entrepreneurial start-up schools is even worse: 67.8 percent.”

Ford is a former vice president of School Choice Wisconsin.

In a summary of his study, he concludes:

“The larger, perhaps more troubling legacy of the first 25 years of the Milwaukee voucher experience is the problem of externalities…When a school closes, students and parents must find new schools, student records may be lost, student achievement will likely suffer, and the public investment in failed institutions is lost.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy,


Joey starts almost every post with the action of opening his mouth _really_ wide and then mentioning a male ("guy").


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Forty-one percent of all private schools that participated in the Milwaukee private school voucher program between 1991 and 2015 failed.


So a 59% success rate? That's like 5x's the success rate of public schools in progressive regions like Detroit and Milwaukee.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So a 59% success rate? That's like 5x's the success rate of public schools in progressive regions like Detroit and Milwaukee.



Um,no, those schools didn't close down and take a bunch of money with them.  Those schools would still be open the next day when you stopped by to drop your kids off.  

Nearly everyone considers Milwaukee's School Voucher program to be a failure, and Michigan's as well.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a 59% success rate? That's like 5x's the success rate of public schools in progressive regions like Detroit and Milwaukee.
> 
> 
> 
> Um,no, those schools didn't close down and take a bunch of money with them.
Click to expand...

Well duh...that's because they fail but are permitted by law to keep stealing unlimited money from the tax payer. They still fail at 5x's the rate of the voucher schools in Milwaukee. Plus - you're clinging to one city like a desperate dog humping a leg because school choice has been a spectacular success nation wide.

I think it's also hilarious that you believe school choice means charter schools only. You literally have no idea what it mean so (like most topics - you're uninformed and clueless). School choice means a child at one PUBLIC school can choose to attend another PUBLIC school in a neighboring district.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well duh...that's because they fail but are permitted by law to keep stealing unlimited money from the tax payer. They still fail at 5x's the rate of the voucher schools in Milwaukee. Plus - you're clinging to one city like a desperate dog humping a leg because school choice has been a spectacular success nation wide.



Well, only one city was dumb enough to try it on a mass scale. Most other cities either didn't do it at all, or did it under very limited circumstances. 



P@triot said:


> I think it's also hilarious that you believe school choice means charter schools only. You literally have no idea what it mean so (like most topics - you're uninformed and clueless). School choice means a child at one PUBLIC school can choose to attend another PUBLIC school in a neighboring district.



which again, is a pretty bad idea. I mean, sure, it would be wonderful if all the city kids from Chicago can go to the swanky public school in Evanston, but the taxpayers of Evanston wouldn't be too keen on that and the money needed to move them around just isn't there. 

But here's the real problem with school choice, and I say this as someone who went to parochial schools. The Parochial School didn't do a better job because the Frustrated Lesbian in a Penguin Dress was any better of a teacher than her counterpart in a public school. 

The reason kids in parochial schools do better is because their parents are spending their OWN MONEY and they have skin in the game. 

And given their druthers, those schools would rather take the people paying their own way.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's also hilarious that you believe school choice means charter schools only. You literally have no idea what it mean so (like most topics - you're uninformed and clueless). School choice means a child at one PUBLIC school can choose to attend another PUBLIC school in a neighboring district.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which again, is a pretty bad idea. I mean, sure, it would be wonderful if all the city kids from Chicago can go to the swanky public school in Evanston, but the taxpayers of Evanston wouldn't be too keen on that
Click to expand...

Well duh....for all the progressive's rhetoric about "caring" they invented, and continue to promote, segregation. Of course those left-wing parents in Evanston don't want black children coming to their schools.

But here's the thing junior - we don't care. School choice _is_ happening. You can sit on the sidelines whining (like you've done your entire life) or you can accept it. The communism you embrace has been a spectacular failure and the American people are flat out tired of it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well duh....for all the progressive's rhetoric about "caring" they invented, and continue to promote, segregation. Of course those left-wing parents in Evanston don't want black children coming to their schools.



Uh, Folks in Evanston aren't exactly left wing... but never mind. 



P@triot said:


> But here's the thing junior - we don't care. School choice _is_ happening. You can sit on the sidelines whining (like you've done your entire life) or you can accept it. The communism you embrace has been a spectacular failure and the American people are flat out tired of it.



School Choice will fail, and then we'll stop wasting money on it.  

Here's the big problem with school choice, buddy. The more government money a private school collects, the more it ends up acting like a public school.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the big problem with school choice, buddy. The more government money a private school collects, the more it ends up acting like a public school.


Again...school choice is not limited to private schools. It also includes choosing a better public school over a worse public school.

And it will be a spectacular success because if creates competition for the dollars. And competition always raises the bar and produces better results. That's why the communism you love fails - it eliminates competition which lowers the bar.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again...school choice is not limited to private schools. It also includes choosing a better public school over a worse public school.
> 
> And it will be a spectacular success because if creates competition for the dollars. And competition always raises the bar and produces better results. That's why the communism you love fails - it eliminates competition which lowers the bar.



Guy, Greed isn't the answer to everything. 

Milwaukee tried what you are talking about. What they got was a lot of fly-by-night get rich quick schemes that left the kids with no education. 

This is the problem with privatizing public services for profit. You get crap like Blackwater for the military or for profit prisons that just make matters worse.


----------



## Conservative65

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!



What's wrong with Maine expecting adults to do for themselves or the ones for which they are responsible?


----------



## Conservative65

Siete said:


> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.



Until it's ZERO, it's not down enough.


----------



## 2aguy

Our colleges are the best in the World...because they have to compete for students, and students get to choose where they go.......it is foolish to think that failed public schools can be fixed by letting the same people who ran them into the ground will fix them if we just trap the kids into going to them, and then give them more money.....


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...school choice is not limited to private schools. It also includes choosing a better public school over a worse public school.
> 
> And it will be a spectacular success because if creates competition for the dollars. And competition always raises the bar and produces better results. That's why the communism you love fails - it eliminates competition which lowers the bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, Greed isn't the answer to everything.
> 
> Milwaukee tried what you are talking about. What they got was a lot of fly-by-night get rich quick schemes that left the kids with no education.
> 
> This is the problem with privatizing public services for profit. You get crap like Blackwater for the military or for profit prisons that just make matters worse.
Click to expand...


It isn't greedy because you don't like the way things are done.  

If you want to look at greedy, look at those that constantly demand someone else be forced to give up what they earned so it can be handed to the ones that didn't earn it.  I can't be greedy for wanting to do with what I've earned what I want to do.  However, someone thinking that even a penny taken from me to give to them is the epitome of greedy.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Our colleges are the best in the World...because they have to compete for students, and students get to choose where they go.......it is foolish to think that failed public schools can be fixed by letting the same people who ran them into the ground will fix them if we just trap the kids into going to them, and then give them more money.....



Our colleges aren't the best in the world, and they rely heavily on government subsidy. 

If our colleges were the best in the world, why do we have to import so many STEM workers from India?


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> It isn't greedy because you don't like the way things are done.
> 
> If you want to look at greedy, look at those that constantly demand someone else be forced to give up what they earned so it can be handed to the ones that didn't earn it. I can't be greedy for wanting to do with what I've earned what I want to do. However, someone thinking that even a penny taken from me to give to them is the epitome of greedy.



Guy, the problem is, as a wise man said, "You didn't build that". 

You had the advantage of living in a society where someone else paid for your opportunities.  Born on third base and thought you hit a triple.  

Had you been born black and female in this society, you wouldn't have been so lucky.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our colleges are the best in the World...because they have to compete for students, and students get to choose where they go.......it is foolish to think that failed public schools can be fixed by letting the same people who ran them into the ground will fix them if we just trap the kids into going to them, and then give them more money.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our colleges aren't the best in the world, and they rely heavily on government subsidy.
> 
> If our colleges were the best in the world, why do we have to import so many STEM workers from India?
Click to expand...



Yes......government money......that the students can use at any college they want...that would be school vouchers....

Those STEM students come here to get educated.......


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Yes......government money......that the students can use at any college they want...that would be school vouchers....
> 
> Those STEM students come here to get educated.......



Actually, no, most of them get their degrees in India. Trust me, I write their resumes. 

I should also point out that those kids have to get good grades before they can get into the "college they want".  So the colleges choose them as much as they choose the colleges.  

Finally, half of college students don't get degrees!  so holding up the college system as a model where you select the students and only half of them accomplish what you set out to do isn't that good of an idea to apply to elementary and high school.  The schools will simply refuse to take vouchers from kids who have any kind of learning disability or disciplinary problem. 

You see, the thing is, Parochial and Private schools work well because the parents ARE spending their own money. They are involved.  Parents have a lot more to do with success of children in school than the teachers ever will.  

Vouchers aren't going to fix that problem. They might even make it worse.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't greedy because you don't like the way things are done.
> 
> If you want to look at greedy, look at those that constantly demand someone else be forced to give up what they earned so it can be handed to the ones that didn't earn it. I can't be greedy for wanting to do with what I've earned what I want to do. However, someone thinking that even a penny taken from me to give to them is the epitome of greedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the problem is, as a wise man said, "You didn't build that".
> 
> You had the advantage of living in a society where someone else paid for your opportunities.  Born on third base and thought you hit a triple.
> 
> Had you been born black and female in this society, you wouldn't have been so lucky.
Click to expand...


Problem is you listen to retard who make such stupid claims.  

Not only did I build it for myself, I'm expected to help build it for those you claim are always cheated because they aren't able to built it themselves.  

Had I been born a black female, it would be more likely than not that I'd be a single mother with bastard children.  I guess you think that 75% rate is the fault of white people.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our colleges are the best in the World...because they have to compete for students, and students get to choose where they go.......it is foolish to think that failed public schools can be fixed by letting the same people who ran them into the ground will fix them if we just trap the kids into going to them, and then give them more money.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our colleges aren't the best in the world, and they rely heavily on government subsidy.
> 
> If our colleges were the best in the world, why do we have to import so many STEM workers from India?
Click to expand...


Maybe the state school you went to.  The private one from which I graduated didn't.  That's why it was so expensive.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> Not only did I build it for myself, I'm expected to help build it for those you claim are always cheated because they aren't able to built it themselves.



Except you didn't build it yourself. You got help from other people. 



Conservative65 said:


> Had I been born a black female, it would be more likely than not that I'd be a single mother with bastard children. I guess you think that 75% rate is the fault of white people.



I think 400 years of racism has an effect, yes.  Why don't you?


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did I build it for myself, I'm expected to help build it for those you claim are always cheated because they aren't able to built it themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you didn't build it yourself. You got help from other people.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had I been born a black female, it would be more likely than not that I'd be a single mother with bastard children. I guess you think that 75% rate is the fault of white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think 400 years of racism has an effect, yes.  Why don't you?
Click to expand...


You'll need to define help.

Just to be clear, you're saying that a black tramp producing a bastard child is somehow the fault of white people?


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> You'll need to define help.
> 
> Just to be clear, you're saying that a black tramp producing a bastard child is somehow the fault of white people?



Just to be clear, you are a racist POS and need help.  Happy to have sorted that out for you.


----------



## Conservative65

JoeB131 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll need to define help.
> 
> Just to be clear, you're saying that a black tramp producing a bastard child is somehow the fault of white people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, you are a racist POS and need help.  Happy to have sorted that out for you.
Click to expand...


Can't define help or answer a simple question posed to do?  Just to be clear, you're just another retard.  Hope you can figure out how to change it.

Get back to puckering up to Obama's black ass, boy.  He's waiting.


----------



## JoeB131

Conservative65 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll need to define help.
> 
> Just to be clear, you're saying that a black tramp producing a bastard child is somehow the fault of white people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, you are a racist POS and need help.  Happy to have sorted that out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't define help or answer a simple question posed to do?  Just to be clear, you're just another retard.  Hope you can figure out how to change it.
> 
> Get back to puckering up to Obama's black ass, boy.  He's waiting.
Click to expand...


YOur question starts out with a false premise, that just outs you as a racist.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> If our colleges were the best in the world, why do we have to import so many STEM workers from India?


Because we have so many lazy, mooching, parasite progressives...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Our colleges aren't the best in the world...


Well, that's what happens when progressives take over something. They lower the bar _every_ time.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Because we have so many lazy, mooching, parasite progressives...



Um. no. Probably has a lot more to do with the fact that we don't teach these things. When you write the science textbooks to appeal to the folks in Jesusland and you can't mention evolution because that might make baby Jesus cry, you aren't going to get very much in terms of science expertise.  



P@triot said:


> Well, that's what happens when progressives take over something. They lower the bar _every_ time.



But that's the issue, Poodle, who fucked up the colleges?  Because the liberal progressives have been there for some time.  When you have more education, you tend to be more progressive and open minded.  

What ruined the colleges is when we decided as a society that 1) You couldn't get a good job without a bachelor's degree and 2) colleges became money making operations that young people would put themselves in debt to for life. 

Give you an example.  I went to UIC back in the 1980's.  Back in the day, tuition was only about $1500 a year. That would be about $3400 in today's money.  Today tuition at UIC is $13,000 a year.  

Now, why is this relevant? Because when they first built UIC, the rational was to have a college campus that was accessible geographically and economically to inner city youth.  

Today, African American enrollment at UIC is 7.9% of the student body.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, the problem is, as a wise man said, "You didn't build that".


The fact that you consider Barack Insane Obama to be a "wise man" tells us all we need to know...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Give you an example.  I went to UIC back in the 1980's.  Back in the day, tuition was only about $1500 a year. That would be about $3400 in today's money.  Today tuition at UIC is $13,000 a year.


Exactly. Progressives got involved - demanded government throw unlimited money at it, and the costs skyrocketed (because the colleges know the sky is the limit). You dummies are doing the exact same thing to healthcare now.

Here's a basic lesson in economics for you, chief. It illustrates *exactly* what happened.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Exactly. Progressives got involved - demanded government throw unlimited money at it, and the costs skyrocketed (because the colleges know the sky is the limit). You dummies are doing the exact same thing to healthcare now.



hardly. What happened to both health care and education is that the capitalists got involved. 

it's a very simple thing, if I have something you HAVE to have, I can pretty much charge you whatever I want for it, not just what it cost me to produce. It's why Health care had been rising at three times the rate of inflation, not because the government pays for some of it. Doctors hate taking Medicare patients because they set a fixed price. 

Now, back in 1980, when I went to college, you didn't need to go to college to get a job that put food on the table.  You could do what my dad and my brothers did, join a union, learn a trade, and bring home a decent paycheck.  

So what happened? Well, your boy Ronnie Ray-Gun gutted the unions and sold us out to the Japanese, so a lot of those union jobs went away. But also what happened was the colleges did a very good job of telling parents they HAD to have this for their kids and they better be willing to pony up.  

It's not that the universities became more expensive, it's that they became more commercial.  I had an opportunity to visit UIC a couple of weeks ago, and the Student Union was taken over by DUnkin Donuts, Amazon, Chase bank, etc. 

So if you wonder why all those college kids supported Bernie Sanders (who I consider as much of a huckster as Trump, really), it's because they are getting a taste of how much capitalism sucks at an early age.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> hardly. What happened to both health care and education is that the capitalists got involved.
> 
> it's a very simple thing, if I have something you HAVE to have, I can pretty much charge you whatever I want for it, not just what it cost me to produce. It's why Health care had been rising at three times the rate of inflation, not because the government pays for some of it.


So then why were healthcare costs stagnent until Medicare and Medicaid were passed? Why did *nobody* need health insurance in the 1700's and 1800's? _Oops_...

You lose (as always) chief. Both college and healthcare will extremely affordable in the 1800's and early 1900's. It wasn't until government got involved that everything skyrocketed. It's an indisputable fact. Thanks for playing.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So then why were healthcare costs stagnent until Medicare and Medicaid were passed? Why did *nobody* need health insurance in the 1700's and 1800's? _Oops_...



Are some kind of idiot?  In the 1700's, medical treatment was putting leeches on people, the infant mortality rate was 50%, they amputated limbs without anesthetic, and the average life expectancy was 50. 



P@triot said:


> You lose (as always) chief. Both college and healthcare will extremely affordable in the 1800's and early 1900's. It wasn't until government got involved that everything skyrocketed. It's an indisputable fact. Thanks for playing.



Well, again, up until the mid 20th century, "health care" was non-existent.  People died of things like polio, measles, influenza, tuberculous, diphtheria, in short - things that barely exist today as life threatening conditions. 







Similarly, the fact is in 1947,  only about 5% of the adult population got a college degree.  Which is to say, only the very affluent. 






So, um, yeah, when the government got involved, more of us got a good education and we don't die of treatable diseases anymore.  OH MY GOD, Government is horrible. 

You lose, Poodle!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why were healthcare costs stagnent until Medicare and Medicaid were passed? Why did *nobody* need health insurance in the 1700's and 1800's? _Oops_...
> 
> 
> 
> Are some kind of idiot?  In the 1700's, medical treatment was putting leeches on people, the infant mortality rate was 50%, they amputated limbs without anesthetic, and the average life expectancy was 50.
Click to expand...

And? That was "modern medicine" back then, you nitwit. In the year 2100 they will look back on this era and talk about the barbarism of cracking open a person's chest and stopping their heart for bypass surgery.

As always, you sound like an idiot. And you've become more desperate after losing.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Well, again, up until the mid 20th century, "health care" was non-existent.  People died of things like polio, measles, influenza, tuberculous, diphtheria, in short - things that barely exist today as life threatening conditions.


That has nothing do with government, dimwit. That has to do with science and technology. If government was the reason for those things being solved - then why do we still have cancer, AIDS, and chicken pox?

Go home little boy and lick you wounds. I exposed your idiocy in this thread. Costs of healthcare and education have far outpaced inflation and that has been traced directly back to government interference in both sectors.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And? That was "modern medicine" back then, you nitwit. In the year 2100 they will look back on this era and talk about the barbarism of cracking open a person's chest and stopping their heart for bypass surgery.
> 
> As always, you sound like an idiot. And you've become more desperate after losing.



They look at that as barbaric now...when my brother had his heart attack a couple years back, they used laparoscopic surgery to put in a stent.  the point is, progress costs money, which goes back to my original point. 

Health care is either - 

1) A commodity that you should only be entitled to if you are wealthy enough to afford it. 

2) A human right that everyone should have equal access to.  

Most sane, non-psychopathic people would say it should be the latter.  



P@triot said:


> That has nothing do with government, dimwit. That has to do with science and technology. If government was the reason for those things being solved - then why do we still have cancer, AIDS, and chicken pox?



Wow, guy, you fail to realize most science and technology is actually funded for and sponsored by government.  It's why the Libertarian Paradise you dream of wanking off to Ayn Rand doesn't exist anywhere in the world today.  Oh, yeah, and Ayn Rand went on Medicare when her smoking gave her lung cancer.  



P@triot said:


> Costs of healthcare and education have far outpaced inflation and that has been traced directly back to government interference in both sectors.



well, you might long for the bygone libertarian days when a "good" doctor could saw off your leg in 3 seconds, and most people couldn't read.  

But I like living in a time when education and healthcare are universally available.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Health care is either -
> 
> 1) A commodity that you should only be entitled to if you are wealthy enough to afford it.
> 
> 2) A human right that everyone should have equal access to.


Hey dumbass - the U.S. Constitution states I have a *right* to firearms. By your very idiotic interpretation, that means the U.S. government must purchase firearms for every single American.

Just because something is a right doesn't mean the government pays for it, you imbecile. You have a right to healthcare. It's up to _you_ to pay for it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> But I like living in a time when education and healthcare are universally available.


Of course you do...all parasites do.

Me? I prefer living in a time of *liberty*. You're refusal to move to Cuba and experience your socialized medicine first-hands speaks volumes. You enjoy mooching off of conservatives. You're all talk. Just looking to keep the handouts coming. Typical selfish progressives.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Health care is either -
> 
> 1) A commodity that you should only be entitled to if you are wealthy enough to afford it.


Everyone could afford healthcare until you dimwitted progressives demanded that government get involved and caused costs to skyrocket. But...that's what your failed ideology always does.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Hey dumbass - the U.S. Constitution states I have a *right* to firearms. By your very idiotic interpretation, that means the U.S. government must purchase firearms for every single American.
> 
> Just because something is a right doesn't mean the government pays for it, you imbecile. You have a right to healthcare. It's up to _you_ to pay for it.



Poodle, the Constitution says you have a right to a well regulated Militia.  I was part of a well organized militia, and guess what, they provided the guns, and the ammo.  

Now, that said, how about answering the question. 

Do you think poor children should be allowed to die of treatable diseases because their parents are poor?  

Sane people say, "No".   



P@triot said:


> Everyone could afford healthcare until you dimwitted progressives demanded that government get involved and caused costs to skyrocket. But...that's what your failed ideology always does.



Well, no, they couldn't, which is why government got involved. The reason why we got medicare and medicaid was because the old and poor couldn't afford health care. 

The thing is, the UK, with it's socialized medicine, only spends 9% of it's GDP on health care while we spend 17%. They live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Me? I prefer living in a time of *liberty*. You're refusal to move to Cuba and experience your socialized medicine first-hands speaks volumes. You enjoy mooching off of conservatives. You're all talk. Just looking to keep the handouts coming. Typical selfish progressives.



Your refusal to move to Somalia and experience your "liberty" first-hand speaks volumes. Like most selfish libertarians, you enjoy mooching off of liberals.  You are all talk.  Just keep complaining about the handouts until you need them, like that bitch Ayn Rand did.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Just keep complaining about the handouts until you need them, like that bitch Ayn Rand did.


The government took 60% of Ayn Rand's money for the unconstitutional handouts you keep demanding. Whether she needed them or not - it only makes sense to take every last one of them and then some. I plan on getting as much of *my* money back as I can.

Now - I know that bothers you because you're selfish as hell and want as much of my money as you can get your grubby little hands on, but tough shit.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me? I prefer living in a time of *liberty*. You're refusal to move to Cuba and experience your socialized medicine first-hands speaks volumes. You enjoy mooching off of conservatives. You're all talk. Just looking to keep the handouts coming. Typical selfish progressives.
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to move to Somalia and experience your "liberty" first-hand speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Well for starters - Somalia is a left-wing utopia. Everything is done by force at the barrel of a gun. There is no liberty there. Would you like to try again? 

And not for nothing, snowflake, but why would I head to any country for liberty when the U.S. Constitution already _guarantees_ me the exact liberty I'm looking for?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, the Constitution says you have a right to a well regulated Militia.  I was part of a well organized militia, and guess what, they provided the guns, and the ammo.


Kitty, the more you lie, the dumber you look.


> the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


Now - I do realize that you are the typical illiterate high school dropout progressive - but even you can read that one. The right is of the people to keep and bear arms. It never states that you have a "right to a militia". The U.S. Constitution did, however, already make defense the responsibility of the federal government before the Bill of Rights.

Kids...JoJo there is a prime example of why it's important to stay in school.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Do you think poor children should be allowed to die of treatable diseases because their parents are poor?


I'll answer that question when you answe mine:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

(Do you get it yet or do you need someone to explain it to you?)

Here's the thing, snowflake. Nobody ever has to make that choice. For starters, charity covers that. A family has *never* received a bill for the healthcare their child has received from Shriners Hospital. Never. So rational people have to wonder why you insist on being such a disingenuous _prick_? Why do you have to create false narratives? Oh wait...that's right...your greed and selfishness. You want to keep that government gravy train flowing in your direction.

Second - a person's ability to pay today is absolutely no indication of their ability to pay tomorrow. People have gone from destitute to millionaire over night. So you hand them a bill and then you hold them accountable. See how easy that is?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> The reason why we got medicare and medicaid was because the old and poor couldn't afford health care.


Uh...no....snowflake. The reason we got Medicare and Medicaid is because the Dumbocrats are addicted to power and they thought they saw an opportunity for permanent power. They were too stupid to understand real Americans.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> he government took 60% of Ayn Rand's money for the unconstitutional handouts you keep demanding. Whether she needed them or not - it only makes sense to take every last one of them and then some. I plan on getting as much of *my* money back as I can.
> 
> Now - I know that bothers you because you're selfish as hell and want as much of my money as you can get your grubby little hands on, but tough shit.



Rand was never living large on her writing.  She died poor.  She was one of the welfare leeches you whine about all day.  And a hypocrite.  

And you can try to cheat the government, but at the end of the day, those baby boomers are going to get what we were promised.  Sorry, bud, suck on it.  



P@triot said:


> Here's the thing, snowflake. Nobody ever has to make that choice. For starters, charity covers that. A family has *never* received a bill for the healthcare their child has received from Shriners Hospital. Never. So rational people have to wonder why you insist on being such a disingenuous _prick_? Why do you have to create false narratives? Oh wait...that's right...your greed and selfishness. You want to keep that government gravy train flowing in your direction.



Charities can't cover everyone who is sick, and the ONLY reason why Shriners covers that small slice of the population is because big insurance won't.  Charities are very good at making the people who run them rich, and not good for much else. 

The fact is, government already pays for 39% of medical treatment.  The amount that charities spend doesn't even show up on the graph. 








P@triot said:


> Second - a person's ability to pay today is absolutely no indication of their ability to pay tomorrow. People have gone from destitute to millionaire over night. So you hand them a bill and then you hold them accountable. See how easy that is?



Dude, this has to be the most retarded thing you've said yet.  Besides the fact that one of the drivers of medical costs is all the people who show up at Emergency Rooms and never, ever pay their bills, actually saddling people with medical debt DECREASES their ability to get a good paying job in the future. Most companies won't hire you if you have a shitty credit score.  So what you end up having is poor people walking off on their bills and the hospitals saddling the rest of us with $100.00 Aspirins. 



P@triot said:


> Uh...no....snowflake. The reason we got Medicare and Medicaid is because the Dumbocrats are addicted to power and they thought they saw an opportunity for permanent power. They were too stupid to understand real Americans.



Dude, your party never runs on "We are going to cut Granny's MediCare".  I honestly wish the fuck you would, instead of promising the rubes you are going to ban abortion or some such bullshit.  

We got them because Private Insurance wasn't doing the job.  They are staying because Republicans know damned well they'd be lynched if they got rid of them.  Which is why after SEVEN YEARS of talking smack about getting rid of the ACA, they completely folded when it came to actually doing it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> And you can try to cheat the government, but at the end of the day, those baby boomers are going to get what we were promised.  Sorry, bud, suck on it.


Cheat the government? Holy cow are you one paranoid parasite. How do you get "cheat the government" from me saying that I plan to take every single penny in "benefits" from the government?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Cheat the government? Holy cow are you one paranoid parasite. How do you get "cheat the government" from me saying that I plan to take every single penny in "benefits" from the government?



So you are admitting to be ing a hypocrite?  Sorry, man, a rugged  individualist would rather die than be a slave to the government. 

The reality, though... by the time you hit 65, Paul Ryan would have given all your money to the rich in Tax cuts.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheat the government? Holy cow are you one paranoid parasite. How do you get "cheat the government" from me saying that I plan to take every single penny in "benefits" from the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting to be ing a hypocrite?  Sorry, man, a rugged  individualist would rather die than be a slave to the government.
Click to expand...

Again - a weak *false* *narrative*. You're so desperate because you unable to defend your idiotic views.

I'm not going to allow the U.S. government to *steal* 60% of my money for illegal, unconstitutional socialism and then forgo an opportunity to get _some_ of it back. I'm going to get every last penny that I can.

You want to see "rugged individualism", junior? Allow me to opt out so that they can't take my money. I won't take a single cent from them in any form of benefit.

But you parasites won't do that because you know the people you mooch off of will all opt out - leaving you with nothing. That's why the left must do everything by force at the barrel of a gun.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again - a weak *false* *narrative*. You're so desperate because you unable to defend your idiotic views.
> 
> I'm not going to allow the U.S. government to *steal* 60% of my money for illegal, unconstitutional socialism and then forgo an opportunity to get _some_ of it back. I'm going to get every last penny that I can.



So you are perfectly okay being a slave to the government...  Got it. 

Not that the government is taking anywhere near 60% of your wealth, but never mind. 



P@triot said:


> You want to see "rugged individualism", junior? Allow me to opt out so that they can't take my money. I won't take a single cent from them in any form of benefit.



sure you won't. You've just said you are okay with welfare as long as it's "White People Welfare". 



P@triot said:


> But you parasites won't do that because you know the people you mooch off of will all opt out - leaving you with nothing. That's why the left must do everything by force at the barrel of a gun.



We do everything by ballot box.  Every last social program you whine about, people voted for saying, "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea". 

The problem with your crazy ideas is no one really wants them, not even conservatives.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> We do everything by ballot box.  Every last social program you whine about, people voted for saying, "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea".


You sound like a lunatic. I mean...more than normal. Nobody voted for Social Security. FDR and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own. Nobody voted for welfare. FDR and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own. Nobody voted for Obamacare. Obama and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own (and it cost them big time).

Is there _anything_ you don't lie about?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> So you are perfectly okay being a slave to the government...


Nope. Not the least bit ok with it. Parasites such as yourself have tried to make all Americans slaves to the government for your own selfish greed. Sadly, you've been somewhat successful.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to see "rugged individualism", junior? Allow me to opt out so that they can't take my money. I won't take a single cent from them in any form of benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> sure you won't. You've just said you are okay with welfare as long as it's "White People Welfare".
Click to expand...

Again - a *false* *narrative*. I said I'm getting back what was stolen from me by selfish, greedy parasites such as yourself. How does that equate to "ok with welfare"?

You're getting more desperate with each post. I guess that's what happens when you irrational, emotional opinions get their ass kicked by cold, hard facts!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Not that the government is taking anywhere near 60% of your wealth, but never mind.


Being that you are an uninformed, uneducated, left-wing parasite, I don't expect you to even remotely understand this one so I will happily explain it to you.

Income tax by the federal government is not the only taxes you pay (unfortunately the left is too stupid to realize that).

First, the federal government hits me with an income tax. Then, the state hits me with an income tax. Then, the county hits me with an income tax. At 50% right there alone.

Now, what's left I'm supposed to live off of. But it doesn't stop there. Then the city hits me with a _property_ tax. Then, when I got to the store, I get hit with a _sales_ tax. Then I go to the pump and I get hit with a _gas_ tax. One of my personal favorites? The 911 tax on my cell phone bill. That's not even half the taxes you get hit with. Again, you're just too stupid to know it. All of which adds up to 60% - 65% in taxes.

But....one day when you grow up and mommy and daddy aren't paying your bills for you, you'll realize how ignorant your socialism views are (if you ever actually get a job).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> You sound like a lunatic. I mean...more than normal. Nobody voted for Social Security. FDR and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own. Nobody voted for welfare. FDR and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own. Nobody voted for Obamacare. Obama and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own (and it cost them big time).



Yes, they did. They threw nearly every last Republican out of office in the 1930's, and the GOP wasn't allowed back into power until the 1950's, when Ike had to admit- "Um, yeah, the New Deal was a pretty good idea. Good thing we did that."  

Sadly, the GOP has been taken over by religious nuts and libertarian assholes, which is why they have to steal elections because they can't win them. 



P@triot said:


> First, the federal government hits me with an income tax. Then, the state hits me with an income tax. Then, the county hits me with an income tax. At 50% right there alone.



I don't know what county you live in where there's a county income tax. But somehow, I doubt you make enough money where you'd hit that threshold.  I made over $80,000 last year, and my total payout was less than $20,000 on a side business and two properties. 



P@triot said:


> Again, you're just too stupid to know it. All of which adds up to 60% - 65% in taxes.



Now you are just making shit up. If you were in a high enough bracket where those things were really a factor, (you aren't), then even an accountant who was half asleep could lower your liability.  

So again, probably a 25 year old kid who has dreams of being rich when he climbs the corporate ladder, listening to the big man complain about paying his fair share.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're just too stupid to know it. All of which adds up to 60% - 65% in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just making shit up. If you were in a high enough bracket where those things were really a factor, (you aren't), then even an accountant who was half asleep could lower your liability.
Click to expand...

Like I said junior...you'll understand one day when you move out of mommy and daddy's home and your out on your own, actually paying taxes.

You're just a little butt-hurt at the moment because I exposed your astounding ignorance of taxes.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a lunatic. I mean...more than normal. Nobody voted for Social Security. FDR and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own. Nobody voted for welfare. FDR and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own. Nobody voted for Obamacare. Obama and the Dumbocrats did that shit all on their own (and it cost them big time).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they did.
Click to expand...

I realize that you don't have the slightest clue how your own system of government functions (you've proven that much time and time again). But even you know that none of those items were put up for a vote and voted on by the American people.

Every time you get your ass kicked (which is every time you post), you resort to lying.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're just too stupid to know it. All of which adds up to 60% - 65% in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just making shit up. If you were in a high enough bracket where those things were really a factor, (you aren't), then even an accountant who was half asleep could lower your liability.
Click to expand...

Accountants can't lower sales tax, you dumb dillhole. 

Accountants can't lower property tax, you dumb dillhole. 

Accountants can't lower income tax, you dumb dillhole. 

The _only_ thing they can do to lower the total amount of actual dollars is to cheat the system. Now parasites like you do that all the time - but I *refuse* to. I'd rather pay my 60% - 65% than go to prison (liberty is priceless - a fact you're too stupid and greedy to figure out).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Like I said junior...you'll understand one day when you move out of mommy and daddy's home and your out on your own, actually paying taxes.
> 
> You're just a little butt-hurt at the moment because I exposed your astounding ignorance of taxes.



dude, you simply don't make that much money.  

Any accountant that isn't taking your deductions on Schedule A for those other things is grossly inept. 

So my guess, you are just repeating whatever shit you hear on Hate Radio because you think that's reality. 



P@triot said:


> Accountants can't lower property tax, you dumb dillhole



No, but they would know how to deduct that from Schedule A... and reduce your overall tax burden... so it tells me that you really don't know that much about taxes. 

I do. I've been paying them for 35 years now.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> I do. I've been paying them for 35 years now.


Geez....and you _still_ haven't moved out of your parents house yet?!? I guess a YouTube channel just doesn't bring it that much money.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Geez....and you _still_ haven't moved out of your parents house yet?!? I guess a YouTube channel just doesn't bring it that much money.



Wouldn't know, don't have a YouTube channel.  Are you stalking some poor fool on YouTube because you think he's me?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez....and you _still_ haven't moved out of your parents house yet?!? I guess a YouTube channel just doesn't bring it that much money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, don't have a YouTube channel.  Are you stalking some poor fool on YouTube because you think he's me?
Click to expand...

It's bad enough you ruin USMB with your presence. Do you _really_ think I want to seek you out in other platforms?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> It's bad enough you ruin USMB with your presence. Do you _really_ think I want to seek you out in other platforms?



I don't know, Poodle you engage in a lot lot of weird stalking behavior.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad enough you ruin USMB with your presence. Do you _really_ think I want to seek you out in other platforms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, Poodle you engage in a lot lot of weird stalking behavior.
Click to expand...

That's the battle cry of _every_ snowflake when they are exposed for being liars and ignorant of issues.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That's the battle cry of _every_ snowflake when they are exposed for being liars and ignorant of issues.



Naw, Poodle, you just have some weird obsession, probably because all the times I've outed you as a petulent child. 

But go back and read your Ayn Rand, she'll tell you your selfishness is okay.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> But go back and read your Ayn Rand, she'll tell you your selfishness is okay.


Go back and read your Karl Marx. He'll tell you that your mooching off of other people is justified.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Go back and read your Karl Marx. He'll tell you that your mooching off of other people is justified.



obviously you've never read Marx.. 

Not that I agree with him, he got  lot of stuff wrong. 

SO let me get this straight, someone makes millions of dollars off the labor of others, and the workers are mooching?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read your Karl Marx. He'll tell you that your mooching off of other people is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> obviously you've never read Marx..
> 
> Not that I agree with him, he got  lot of stuff wrong.
> 
> SO let me get this straight, someone makes millions of dollars off the labor of others, and the workers are mooching?
Click to expand...

They aren't making millions of dollars "off the labor of others". They are making millions of dollars off of their idea, their product, etc.

Your false narratives are idiotic.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> They aren't making millions of dollars "off the labor of others". They are making millions of dollars off of their idea, their product, etc.
> 
> Your false narratives are idiotic.



A product someone else designed, someone else built, someone else delivered.  

A capitalist is a parasite that has convinced stupid people it's a vital organ.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> A product someone else designed, someone else built, someone else delivered.


So you're going to try to convince everyone that Bill Gates didn't design Windows? That Steve Wozniak didn't design the Apple? That Mark Zuckerberg didn't design Facebook? That Larry Ellison didn't design Oracle? That Walt Disney didn't design Mickey Mouse?

With each post you make, Joseph Goebbels, you make yourself look dumber and dumber.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> A capitalist is a parasite that has convinced stupid people it's a vital organ.


Amen Joseph Goebbels is at it again. A producer is a "parasite" and a parasite is a "producer". Nice try snowflake. Nobody is fooled other than your fellow ignorant progressives.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> o you're going to try to convince everyone that Bill Gates didn't design Windows? That Steve Wozniak didn't design the Apple? That Mark Zuckerberg didn't design Facebook? That Larry Ellison didn't design Oracle? That Walt Disney didn't design Mickey Mouse?



Except that none of those original ideas were what makes the money, bud.  

Zuckerman is not the guy sitting there writing the code to keep facebook up to date.  That's some fool in India, probably.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Zuckerman is not the guy sitting there writing the code to keep facebook up to date.  That's some fool in India, probably.


Zuckerberg created the code. He pays someone else to update it only because he's busy doing exponentially more important things. The person paid to update the code is more than fairly compensated for the mindless work of updating the code. That person didn't have the brains to build the code into a world-changing product like Zuckerberg did.


----------



## P@triot

We have the entire blueprint for prosperity. It's just a matter of ignoring the anti-American progressives who prefer emotion over logic and reason.


> “People are leaving blue states. Blue states are losing their political clout because people are leaving blue states,” Moore said, adding: This is every day … roughly a thousand people every day leave blue states and move to red states, so that’s a big migration over a decade. … That’s like 4 million people over a decade … leaving New York and Connecticut and Illinois and Michigan and even California … and other states. People are voting with their feet against liberalism.


Nothing creates poverty & misery - and subsequently causes people to flee - like idiotic, failed, left-wing policy...

GOP State Dominance at 95-Year High


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Zuckerberg created the code. He pays someone else to update it only because he's busy doing exponentially more important things.



What, being a rich douchebag?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zuckerberg created the code. He pays someone else to update it only because he's busy doing exponentially more important things.
> 
> 
> 
> What, being a rich douchebag?
Click to expand...

Yes. What normal, rational people call "running one of the most successful companies in the _world_".

Meanwhile, in Chicago, you wallow in poverty because you are a poor douchebag.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yes. What normal, rational people call "running one of the most successful companies in the _world_".
> 
> Meanwhile, in Chicago, you wallow in poverty because you are a poor douchebag.



Probably made more than you did last year, Poodle.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Probably made more than you did last year, Poodle.


And you're _still_ an absolutely miserable douchebag. That really illustrates what an asshole you are!


----------



## hazlnut

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



So we should run the country like Maine….

I'm thinking 1.33 million population, is not a great test run for federal policy… maple sugar and lobster… yeah… um…

*And could you please site a legitimate non-youtube source that shows incomes doubled in Maine in one year…*


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And you're _still_ an absolutely miserable douchebag. That really illustrates what an asshole you are!



No, it proves money isn't a be all and end all.  I'm sorry you don't get this.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're _still_ an absolutely miserable douchebag. That really illustrates what an asshole you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it proves money isn't a be all and end all.  I'm sorry you don't get this.
Click to expand...

Then why do you spend every waking minute filled with a furious envy of people who have it?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Then why do you spend every waking minute filled with a furious envy of people who have it?



Okay, serious answer time. 

I don't.  I'm sorry your reading comprehension skills are so poor that's what you come away with.  

What I think is that WHENEVER you have a society where most of the wealth is concentrated in too few hands, and most of the rest of the society labors away and sees very little reward for it, you never, ever have good results. 

What you have is 

France 1787
Russia 1917
China 1949
Cuba 1959
Iran 1979

You get a population that is so angry that it will listen to any charlatan promising to either fix it or at the very least, get revenge on the rich who made it that way. 

I see America going that direction.  If you told me 35 years ago, a charlatan like Trump would get into office because the white working class was so angry, I'd have laughed at you.  But 35 years ago, the Minimum wage had some teeth, and enough of the workforce was unionized to guarantee a real middle class.  The stupid white people who voted for Trump know that something has been lost., they just don't understand why.  

What I see happening is that WHEN Trump fails to deliver on his promises - the economic ones, anyway- that same white working class will turn to a charlatan like Bernie and you are going to get exactly what you don't want. 

So if you want to compare Capitalism to a pit bull. Your sort wants it to roam the neighborhood mauling the neighborhood kids because, hey, they don't have a pit bull of their own.  

The socialist wants to take your pit bull out and shoot it. 

I want it kept on a short leash and sent to obedience school. It can do some good, but it needs to be controlled. 

Now, I'm sure this explanation will be lost on you, and you'll just regurgitate something you heard on hate radio like it was an original thought


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> I want it kept on a short leash and sent to obedience school. It can do some good, but it needs to be controlled.


First rational, decent thing you've _ever_ said. Well done.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works (and we know what doesn't). There are no excuses. The leadership on the left _wants_ us to fail (Cloward & Piven) and the minions on the left are simply uneducated. We need to educate the minions and stop electing their leaders.

*1. A low, flat rate

2. The ability to file taxes on a postcard

3. Immediate expensing

4. A low corporate rate

5. Encourage repatriation

6. Abolish the death tax

7. End the alternative minimum tax*

Cruz Highlights 7 Ideas for Tax Reform


----------



## sartre play

Prosperity, but not for us.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works (and we know what doesn't). There are no excuses. The leadership on the left _wants_ us to fail (Cloward & Piven) and the minions on the left are simply uneducated. We need to educate the minions and stop electing their leaders.



Guy, you've been singing this supply side song for generations now.  

The magic prosperity never shows up.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works (and we know what doesn't). There are no excuses. The leadership on the left _wants_ us to fail (Cloward & Piven) and the minions on the left are simply uneducated. We need to educate the minions and stop electing their leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you've been singing this supply side song for generations now.
> 
> The magic prosperity never shows up.
Click to expand...

Yeah...we only live in the *wealthiest* nation in the _world_.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yeah...we only live in the *wealthiest* nation in the _world_.



But we became the wealthiest nation in the world because of progressive policies.   we've been in decline since we started listening to you clowns. 

you see, this is how I can tell you are in your 20s.  You really aren't old enough to remember what it was like when America was an awesome place to live, when a guy could bring home a good union paycheck and raise a family in comfort.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...we only live in the *wealthiest* nation in the _world_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we became the wealthiest nation in the world because of progressive policies.   we've been in decline since we started listening to you clowns.
> 
> you see, this is how I can tell you are in your 20s.  You really aren't old enough to remember what it was like when America was an awesome place to live, when a guy could bring home a good union paycheck and raise a family in comfort.
Click to expand...

Snowflake...we've been in decline ever since the rise of progressivism. Pure constitutional conservatism took us from a new founded, fledgling nation to the world's most elite superpower. Progressivism has saddled us with $20 trillion in debt, crumbling infrastructure, and a failed education.

And this is how I know that I'm older than you. Because you buy into the new wave propaganda like a good blind, deaf, and dumb little progressive. I remember when we lead the world in education. Then progressives invaded it, followed by unions, and now we pump out inner city progressive children who read and write and a third grade level.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Snowflake...we've been in decline ever since the rise of progressivism



Like I said, buddy, when you grow up some day, you'll realize America is great because of progressiveness.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...we've been in decline ever since the rise of progressivism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, buddy, when you grow up some day, you'll realize America is great because of progressiveness.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can’t dispute _anything_ I said because it is 100% accurate. Sorry snowflake, but history has proven that government control and coercion ends badly.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> In other words, you can’t dispute _anything_ I said because it is 100% accurate. Sorry snowflake, but history has proven that government control and coercion ends badly.



History proves nothing of the sort.  If you took your whacky LIbertarian views to an actual history department, you'd be laughed at.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you can’t dispute _anything_ I said because it is 100% accurate. Sorry snowflake, but history has proven that government control and coercion ends badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History proves nothing of the sort.  If you took your whacky LIbertarian views to an actual history department, you'd be laughed at.
Click to expand...

I don’t have “views” snowflake. I have history, facts, data, etc. All of which proves your ideology is nonsense.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I don’t have “views” snowflake. I have history, facts, data, etc. All of which proves your ideology is nonsense.



Okay buddy, there's a reason why Warren Harding is considered one of worst presidents and FDR is considered one of the best, if you want to talk about "history". 

If you want to talk about "Data", we had our greatest prosperity when the Rich were taxed a  high rate and the workforce was highly unionized. 

Again, if you were older than 25, you'd know this.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Okay buddy, there's a reason why Warren Harding is considered one of worst presidents and FDR is considered one of the best, if you want to talk about "history".


Yeah...it’s called “progressive propaganda”. Outside of progressive propaganda, FDR is considered a joke. He personally oversaw (and expanded) The Great Depression. Even his own Secretary of the Treasury - who was none other than the architect behind the idiotic “Raw Deal” - _admitted_ it. 


> “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”


'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'

Then, even left-wing institutions admitted it. All of which you are highly ignorant of because you’re an immature, uninformed, envious partisan hack.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression

Your schtick has grown tiring junior. Go play with your fellow snowflake millennials - the adults are in charge once again and we’re taking care of business.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> If you want to talk about "Data", we had our greatest prosperity when the Rich were taxed a  high rate and the workforce was highly unionized.


Yeah...there’s a reason why Jimmy Carter was a one term joke. Your parasite policies don’t work. Everyone on USMB has grown weary of your schtick. Move along now junior. Go troll somewhere else.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yeah...it’s called “progressive propaganda”. Outside of progressive propaganda, FDR is considered a joke. He personally oversaw (and expanded) The Great Depression. Even his own Secretary of the Treasury - who was none other than the architect behind the idiotic “Raw Deal” - _admitted_ it.



What kind of bizarre ass alternate history did you learn?  I really have to ask this.  

FDR got us through the great depression, helped win WWII, and created the American Middle Class which really didn't exist before 1929. 

Seriously between you and Political Chick, I think you both got off the spaceship from Bizarro World.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yeah...there’s a reason why Jimmy Carter was a one term joke. Your parasite policies don’t work. Everyone on USMB has grown weary of your schtick. Move along now junior. Go troll somewhere else.



Again, this is where i suspect you are about 25, probably not even old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was president. 

Do you know why Jimmy Carter failed? Because he was a Republican masquerading as a Democrat.  After the McGovern Debacle of 1972, the Democrats tried to move to the right, to the point where there was little or no difference between Carter and Jerry Ford. If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, he'd have probably won.  

By 1980, Democrats were so fed up with Carter that they got behind Ted Kennedy, who probably would have won the nomination had the Iran Hostage Crisis hadn't happened. 

Again, if you weren't 25 and learned your "history" from a closeted homosexual on Hate Radio, you'd know this.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> By 1980, Democrats were so fed up with Carter that they got behind Ted Kennedy, who probably would have won the nomination had the Iran Hostage Crisis hadn't happened.


----------



## P@triot

Even progressives _love_ *President Trump’s* tax plan (when they are just given the *facts*).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...it’s called “progressive propaganda”. Outside of progressive propaganda, FDR is considered a joke. He personally oversaw (and expanded) The Great Depression. Even his own Secretary of the Treasury - who was none other than the architect behind the idiotic “Raw Deal” - _admitted_ it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of bizarre ass alternate history did you learn?  I really have to ask this.
Click to expand...

The kind that included 3 links proving I was 100% right and you were completely wrong (as usual).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The kind that included 3 links proving I was 100% right and you were completely wrong (as usual).



Links from nutter websites aren't proof.  

It's quite obvious any exposure you had to higher education was wasted.


----------



## P@triot

Well what do you know - Mr. Progressive here is *demanding* true conservative policy when it comes to _his_ company. Funny, he talks one hell of a progressive game when it comes to everyone else’s company (much like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Tim Cook, etc.). It’s amazing that they are so easily able to dupe the left-wing masses. When they talk a progressive game, they are simply trying to pull the ladder up behind themselves to ensure the supremacy of their own companies (and by extension - the supremacy of their own wealth and power).


> Amazon has some requirements, however. Its new home would ideally be in a city with at least 1 million people, an international airport, *and a "stable and business-friendly environment."*


In other words,  Mr. Progressive wants the lowest tax rates he can negotiate in the entire U.S., the least amount of regulations he can negotiate in the entire U.S., and the minimal left-wing labor laws he must ensure. Jeff Bezos - like all successful businessmen - wants his companies to operate under Ronald Reagan / Rand Paul policies.

*We Have The Blueprint For Prosperity*

Amazon has triggered a $5 billion bidding war — here are the cities that are in competition for its new HQ


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kind that included 3 links proving I was 100% right and you were completely wrong (as usual).
> 
> 
> 
> Links from nutter websites aren't proof. It's quite obvious any exposure you had to higher education was wasted.
Click to expand...

It’s exponentially more than you’re uninformed _opinions_.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> It’s exponentially more than you’re uninformed _opinions_.



Yes, well, here's the thing. 

FDR is consistently rated by Historians as one of the 5 best presidents. 

Usually in the top 3.  

I'll take the word of real historians over some kid who wanked off to Ayn Rand as a teen.


----------



## P@triot

This is what happens when you provide businesss with an environment they need to thrive. The left has spent decades driving businesses out of the U.S. The right is bringing them back...

Trump Announces Major Company Is Moving to the US


----------



## JoeB131

Poodle thinks TownHall is credible....  That's adorable.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle thinks TownHall is credible....  That's adorable.


Some people speak because they have something to say. Others speak because they have to say _something_. Joey is clearly the latter. Once again he adds absolutely no value to a thread. But just make a comment for attention.


----------



## P@triot

It’s such a shame that the left is so uneducated and so ideological. We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again what works (conservatism) and what doesn’t (progressivism). We lose so many jobs and so many opportunities for prosperity due to the cancer known as progressivism...


> "We turn away enough people to fill another drive-in on the weekends, but I don't have enough money to expand, between the taxes and regulations," says Susan Kochevar.


We see this every day across America. Lost opportunities for expansion. For wealth. For jobs. For prosperity. All because of failed left-wing socialism. The left wants Venezuela and the former U.S.S.R. when we could have prosperity that even surpasses the U.S. at its peak.

How Tax Reform Could Empower This Drive-in Theater Owner to Expand Her Business


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
Click to expand...


But able bodied adults make up 5% of the total number of people receiving food stamps. That a 70% decrease of the 5% who are able bodied. In actuality the total number of people receiving food stamps decreased by 3.5%. Which is not out of line with the decreases in food stamp useage nation wide.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Some people speak because they have something to say. Others speak because they have to say _something_. Joey is clearly the latter. Once again he adds absolutely no value to a thread. But just make a comment for attention.



Naw, dude, you think a hack site like Townhall is a credible news source. That says a lot about you. 



P@triot said:


> It’s such a shame that the left is so uneducated and so ideological. We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again what works (conservatism) and what doesn’t (progressivism).



history proves the exact opposite. We had our greatest prosperity in the period where the rich were taxed and the workforce was unionized. 

If you weren't 25 years old, you'd remember what a real middle class looked like.


----------



## P@triot

The numbers don’t lie...progressives do.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The numbers don’t lie...progressives do.



No, those numbers are kind of meaningless in the context of demographics. 

The 2008 Recession was a lot worse than the 1981 recession that Reagan intentionally allowed to reduce inflation. You see, if you weren't a child, you'd know that the 1981 recession wasn't an accident. It was intentionally instigated by the Federal Reserve with the collusion of both Carter and Reagan because their biggest concern was bringing down inflation, and the way to do that was to bring down wages. 

And while Reagan was dealing with the Baby Boomers hitting their peak in the workforce, Obama had to deal with them exiting it due to aging out.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> And while Reagan was dealing with the Baby Boomers hitting their peak in the workforce, Obama had to deal with them exiting it due to aging out.


That means Obama had the distinct advantage of having a natural abundance of jobs that needed to be filled. And he _still_ *failed* to recover the economy like Reagan did!

Thank you for proving my point for me...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> The 2008 Recession was a lot worse than the 1981


Another egregious *lie*. Obama didn’t even have to deal with an energy crisis (though he did his best to manufacture one) like Carter left Reagan with. Those of us who were there remember well, snowflake.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That means Obama had the distinct advantage of having a natural abundance of jobs that needed to be filled. And he _still_ *failed* to recover the economy like Reagan did!



except they didn't need to be filled, dummy.  They had been mostly replaced by automation. 

Seriously, do you have any idea how economics works? Well, obviously you don't since you seem to think that _Atlas Shrugged_ is how economies work. 



P@triot said:


> Another egregious *lie*. Obama didn’t even have to deal with an energy crisis (though he did his best to manufacture one) like Carter left Reagan with. Those of us who were there remember well, snowflake.



Actually, the "Energy Crisis" was pretty much over by 1981. The Saudis panicked when they realized we might start exploring alternative energy and the brought the cost of oil down by putting the spigot up to full.  You'd know this if you were around at the time.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means Obama had the distinct advantage of having a natural abundance of jobs that needed to be filled. And he _still_ *failed* to recover the economy like Reagan did!
> 
> 
> 
> except they didn't need to be filled, dummy.  They had been mostly replaced by automation.
Click to expand...

Really? Then how did President Trump already create 1 million jobs in his first 7 months on the job, stupid? 

Watching you chase your own tail is absolutely _priceless_. You contradict your own position, prove my point for me, and dig yourself deeper and deeper as you attempt ignore facts and rewrite history.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Ignoring it is done by the left either out of ignorance or out of a deep anti-American sentiment.


> One of the nation’s largest wireless broadband providers has committed to investing $1 billion in the economy if Congress cuts corporate taxes


We know how to build a thriving economy. Low taxes. Limited regulations. Minimal labor laws and labor unions.

But doing these things drastically reduces power for the left and requires each individual to be responsible for themselves. Two things the left desperately does not want.

On Tax Reform, This Communications Giant Puts $1B Where Its Mouth Is


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Ignoring it is done by the left either out of ignorance or out of a deep anti-American sentiment.


> "The business that I started would be able to grow and employ many more people if we could get the government off our neck," writes Bill Tanksley.


We know how to build a thriving economy. Low taxes. Limited regulations. Minimal labor laws and labor unions.

But doing these things drastically reduces power for the left and requires each individual to be responsible for themselves. Two things the left desperately does not want.

We Hear You: 'High-Tax Paradises Such as California Better Wake Up'


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Ignoring it is done by the left either out of ignorance or out of a deep anti-American sentiment.



Yes, we do. It's called making the rich pay their fair share, giving working people a living wage and investing in infrastructure. 

If you weren't 25 getting coffee for the big man, you'd have remembered what that used to look like.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Ignoring it is done by the left either out of ignorance or out of a deep anti-American sentiment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do. It's called making the rich pay their fair share, giving working people a living wage and investing in infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I rest my case. Here is the left ignoring the facts out of Joey’s deep anti-American sentiment. The irony is that he’s advocating for a deep cut in taxes for the wealthy (that’s the only way we could get them to pay their *fair* share - they currently pay way more).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I rest my case. Here is the left ignoring the facts out of Joey’s deep anti-American sentiment. The irony is that he’s advocating for a deep cut in taxes for the wealthy (that’s the only way we could get them to pay their *fair* share - they currently pay way more).



Their fair share is what these greedy fucks were paying before Reagan's senile ass came along. 

I don't mistake the "rich" for my fellow Americans. 

Never met a rich guy once when I was in the military.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Never met a rich guy once when I was in the military.


Well duh...the military is *not* a wealthy endeavor. It is public *service*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Their fair share is what these greedy fucks were paying before Reagan's senile ass came along.


No - their “fair share” is what they will be paying if/when we lower their taxes to about 15%. The numbers don’t lie...even if you progressives do.

The top 1% earn 15% of the income but pay 24% of the taxes. We’d have to cut their tax rate by about 9% and raise _yours_ about 10% for everyone to actually pay their “fair share”.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Their fair share is what these greedy fucks were paying before Reagan's senile ass came along.


This is going to sting a bit...but...looking stupid _always_ does.


> *1. In 1774, colonial Americans had the highest standard of living on earth*
> According to historian Alice Hansen Jones, Americans at the end of the colonial era averaged an annual income of £13.85, which was the highest in the western world.
> 
> *2. The average tax rate in colonial America was between 1% and 1.5%*
> Colonial and Early Americans paid a very low tax rate, both by modern and contemporary standards. Just prior to the Revolution, British tax rates stood at between 5%-7%, dwarfing Americans’ 1%-1.5% tax rates.



It speaks volumes that even an oppressive King demanded only 5% to 7% and 35% isn’t good enough for your greedy and entitled ass.

Like I said - we have the blueprint for prosperity. Low taxes. No government interference (or “services” outside of their constitutional responsibilities). Maximum liberty.

Ten Facts About the Early American Economy


----------



## ScienceRocks

Rebuild the unions...Workers need a powerful voice!
Break up corporations including the media with anti-trust law enforcement
Invest into education

That my friends is the real blueprint of prosperity. Your problem is you believe in flood up to the very people that are offshoring into tax havens that pay next to zero in some cases. how the fuck can cutting a few percent make a difference for these cheating fucks.


----------



## P@triot

ScienceRocks said:


> Rebuild the unions...Workers need a powerful voice!


What does that have to do with government?!? You can “rebuild” your unions _any_ time you want. Of course, that will cause all jobs to go overseas as they did in the past, but we are all used to you people engaging in actions which are detrimental to your own self-interests.


ScienceRocks said:


> Break up corporations including the media with anti-trust law enforcement


Holy shit...Wesley Mouch...is that _you_? Dog-eat-Dog legislation, anyone? 


ScienceRocks said:


> Invest into education


Again...you can do that _any_ time you want. You’re just too cheap and too greedy to invest in other people.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebuild the unions...Workers need a powerful voice!
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with government?!? You can “rebuild” your unions _any_ time you want. Of course, that will cause all jobs to go overseas as they did in the past, but we are all used to you people engaging in actions which are detrimental to your own self-interests.
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Break up corporations including the media with anti-trust law enforcement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit...Wesley Mouch...is that _you_? Dog-eat-Dog legislation, anyone?
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invest into education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...you can do that _any_ time you want. You’re just too cheap and too greedy to invest in other people.
Click to expand...



Jobs went overseas in the 1980's. 

Our highest rate of Union membership was in the post war 1950's when we exported more than we imported.

Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> but we are all used to you people engaging in actions which are detrimental to your own self-interests




Ha, this one statement quite nicely sums up the entire electorate which voted for don trump.

Hope they like paying for for a fast lane on the internet highway...


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Well duh...the military is *not* a wealthy endeavor. It is public *service*.




So the wealthy don't value military public service which defends our nation?

Talk about not standing for the National Anthem.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.


How does one “push” outsourcing? And why would Ronald Reagan submarine his own presidency by “pushing” corporations to take action which would cause unemployment to _skyrocket_ (especially considering unemployment decreased from the time Reagan took office from Carter until the time he left)? It’s amazing how you people swallow whatever progressive narrative you are fed.

The *fact* is - failed progressive policy pushed jobs overseas. Companies don’t want the expense, the headache, and the instability of doing business in China. They have no choice because failed left-wing policy (highest corporate tax rate in the world, devastating regulations, labor laws, and unions) have made it impossible to do business in the U.S. and still turn a profit.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well duh...the military is *not* a wealthy endeavor. It is public *service*.



Well, duh, the kids of the rich never seemed to end up there, for some reason. 

Let the fuckers fight their own damned wars for a change. 

You see, I think we should have conscription, but the children of the rich should be put into a special airborne unit that will be the first deployed to any war zone.  

Betcha we never fight another war over false pretenses or weapons that don't exist again.  



P@triot said:


> It speaks volumes that even an oppressive King demanded only 5% to 7% and 35% isn’t good enough for your greedy and entitled ass.



Okay, here's the problem with this retarded argument. Back in 1776, Leeches were considered cutting edge medical technology.  A road was a patch of ground that was troden over a lot and a bunch of yahoos with squirrel guns were considered an "Army".  

I guess that if you consider "Dying by age 50" to be " a high standard of living"  or going hungry every winter because you didn't have enough food, then yeah, those Colonial Americans had a wonderful standard of living.  

If they were white. 

If they were a black slave doing the back-breaking work or a native american who was about to get genocided for his land, it was considerably worse.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh...the military is *not* a wealthy endeavor. It is public *service*.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wealthy don't value military public service which defends our nation?
Click to expand...

Because the military is public service, your dumb ass somehow draws the conclusion that (and I quote) “the wealthy don’t value military service”? 

Vintage libtard “logic” there. Let’s look at this as a rational person would. Here is but a small list of very wealthy people who served extensively in the U.S. military:

John F. Kennedy
Stanley McCrystal
Collin Powell
George H.W. Bush
Richard Marcinko

Of course...this list is near infinite. What they all have in common is that they made their wealth after leaving the military because the military is not a wealthy endeavor - it is public service (normal people don’t need this explained to them).

Seriously, how stupid do you look right now otto105? Even by your normal standards of stupidity, that was extra idiotic!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well duh...the military is *not* a wealthy endeavor. It is public *service*.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, duh, the kids of the rich never seemed to end up there, for some reason.
Click to expand...

Well sure...if one is a typical Dumbocrat who ignores all facts in favor of making shit up as they go to support a failed and idiotic ideology (ie _you_).

Let’s see...the Kennedy’s children (such as JFK) served. Even served in wartime. George H.W. Bush was wealthy _and_ powerful and still George W. Bush served. Just recently, the (son/nephew?) of a sitting representative died in special forces.

In fact, the service academies are FILLED with the family members of wealthy and powerful people. But as with everything else, you’re just too damn ignorant to know it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Vintage libtard “logic” there. Let’s look at this as a rational person would. Here is but a small list of very wealthy people who served extensively in the U.S. military:



Okay, but you see, other than the generals, who wasn't wealthy when they joined the military, all of those guys joined when we had universal conscription and it was kind of expected.  

When you got Vietnam, the rich found ways to avoid the draft through hiding out in the National Guard (Bush, Quayle), Fake medical conditions- (Limbaugh, Trump), Student deferrment (Cheney) and so on. Today they let the poor kids do it.  

The whole notion that a Powell or a McCrystal can get rich after leaving the service by working for the Military Industrial Complex is kind of a problem, too.  It's part of the reason we have a bloated military when we spend more than the next 10 countries combined, and 8 of them are allies. 



P@triot said:


> Let’s see...the Kennedy’s children (such as JFK) served. Even served in wartime. George H.W. Bush was wealthy _and_ powerful and still George W. Bush served. Just recently, the (son/nephew?) of a sitting representative died in special forces.



Here's the thing, in WWII, everyone WAS expected to serve.  The thing was, the children of the Rich got to be the officers, even if they had no leadership abilities. It was very classist at the time. 

And, no George W. Stupid joining the National Guard and not showing up for drill assemblies because he was stoned off his ass doesn't count as serving.  There was a whole year nobody can tell you where the guy was.  



P@triot said:


> In fact, the service academies are FILLED with the family members of wealthy and powerful people. But as with everything else, you’re just too damn ignorant to know it.



Yeah, well, actually, if there is one thing that is a HUGE example of military waste, it's the Service Academies, where they spend $400,000 to produce a single O-1.  Compared to ROTC, where they may spend about $75,000 or OCS - the only officers I ever met who were worth a shit - where they spend the cost of a 90 day course. 

Why are OCS officers better?  Because they've already distinguished themselves as enlisted men and they know what's going on.  

Seriously, if you want to get rid of waste in the government, West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs would be GREAT places to start.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> How does one “push” outsourcing? And why would Ronald Reagan submarine his own presidency by “pushing” corporations to take action which would cause unemployment to _skyrocket_ (especially considering unemployment decreased from the time Reagan took office from Carter until the time he left)? It’s amazing how you people swallow whatever progressive narrative you are fed.
> 
> The *fact* is - failed progressive policy pushed jobs overseas. Companies don’t want the expense, the headache, and the instability of doing business in China. They have no choice because failed left-wing policy (highest corporate tax rate in the world, devastating regulations, labor laws, and unions) have made it impossible to do business in the U.S. and still turn a profit.
Click to expand...



You can take your little crap ass response and just Google ‘outsourcing’. You will find a beautiful start In Reagan’s 1980s. He barely raised a finger.


Plant closings in the auto industry, private equity firms buy and boning...all of which occurred under the greedy free trade republic pols who early in the 1990s pushed NAFTA on America workers.

Of course, in Russia where you're employed the oligarchy was just getting started.


----------



## JoeB131

otto105 said:


> [
> 
> You can take your little crap ass response and just Google ‘outsourcing’. You will find a beautiful start In Reagan’s 1980s. He barely raised a finger.
> 
> 
> Plant closings in the auto industry, private equity firms buy and boning...all of which occurred under the greedy free trade republic pols who early in the 1990s pushed NAFTA on America workers.
> 
> Of course, in Russia where you're employed the oligarchy was just getting started.



Poodle likes to forget that after he left office, the Japanese paid Reagan a shitload of money for services rendered.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle likes to forget that after he left office, the Japanese paid Reagan a shitload of money for services rendered.


Joey forgets that Barack Insane Obama violated U.S. policy and paid Iran “a shitload of money” for hostages.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Joey forgets that Barack Insane Obama violated U.S. policy and paid Iran “a shitload of money” for hostages.



No, I didn't forget it. 

I just know that the money we gave Iran rightfully belonged to Iran.  

That was Iran's money. We seized it in the 1970's and never gave it back, even after they returned our hostages.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poodle likes to forget that after he left office, the Japanese paid Reagan a shitload of money for services rendered.
> 
> 
> 
> Joey forgets that Barack Insane Obama violated U.S. policy and paid Iran “a shitload of money” for hostages.
Click to expand...



Patidiot forgets that it was Reagan that caused the money to be paid in the first place.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> That was Iran's money. We seized it in the 1970's and never gave it back, even after they returned our hostages.


So logically Barack Insane Obama wouldn’t return it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. Nope...Barack Insane Obama flies it out in the middle of the night on an unmarked plane at the exact same time our hostages are returned.

Wonder why Obama waited 6 long years to “return” money that was over 40 years old at that point....and...it just “happens” to coincide with the return of our hostages. The probability of that has to be one in several quadrillions.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So logically Barack Insane Obama wouldn’t return it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. Nope...Barack Insane Obama flies it out in the middle of the night on an unmarked plane at the exact same time our hostages are returned.



No, he would return it as part of the treaty we signed with Iran that resolved all issues and monitored their nuclear program.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So logically Barack Insane Obama wouldn’t return it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. Nope...Barack Insane Obama flies it out in the middle of the night on an unmarked plane at the exact same time our hostages are returned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he would return it as part of the treaty we signed with Iran that resolved all issues and monitored their nuclear program.
Click to expand...

Again....flown out in the middle of the night....on an unmarked plane....at the exact moment our hostages are released. All great big giant "coincidences", uh chief? How long can you deny reality before it just becomes too exhausting for you?


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Again....flown out in the middle of the night....on an unmarked plane....at the exact moment our hostages are released. All great big giant "coincidences", uh chief? How long can you deny reality before it just becomes too exhausting for you?



I kind of don't care.  

Actually, it wasn't nearly as bad as your boy Reagan providing ACTUAL WEAPONS to Iran in exchange for hostages, and then diverting the funds to drug dealers in Central America.


----------



## Siete

*The blueprint for prosperity*


an escape route out of the Federal Pen in Herlong Ca for Trump and his cartel pals.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....flown out in the middle of the night....on an unmarked plane....at the exact moment our hostages are released. All great big giant "coincidences", uh chief? How long can you deny reality before it just becomes too exhausting for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kind of don't care.
> 
> Actually, it wasn't nearly as bad as your boy Reagan providing ACTUAL WEAPONS to Iran in exchange for hostages, and then diverting the funds to drug dealers in Central America.
Click to expand...

So you finally admit it! About damn time. The criminal Barack Insane Obama never "returned" anything to Iran. That was the lame ass excuse he used after he got caught. He engaged in major criminal behavior.

As for Reagan - as least he was doing it in the best interest of the U.S. and preventing the spread communism. Obama engaged in his actions out of love for Iran and islam.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> So you finally admit it! About damn time. The criminal Barack Insane Obama never "returned" anything to Iran. That was the lame ass excuse he used after he got caught. He engaged in major criminal behavior.



Um, no the Iran agreement called for the return of that money...  please try to stop living in your own world, Poodle  



P@triot said:


> As for Reagan - as least he was doing it in the best interest of the U.S. and preventing the spread communism. Obama engaged in his actions out of love for Iran and islam.



Hey, guy, here's the thing... The Jihadism Reagan created was a lot worse than Communism ever was.  He essentially radicalized a whole region and turned us into peacekeepers there for the last 30 years.   That's all sorts of fucked up.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> He essentially radicalized a whole region and turned us into *peacekeepers* there for the last 30 years.   That's all sorts of fucked up.


Yeah...nothing says “fucked up” like being a _peacekeeper_.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no the Iran agreement called for the return of that money...


Um...the “Iran Agreement” was money in exchange for hostages (hostages that Barack Insane Obama handed Iran by telling his own Navy to stand down and surrender).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yeah...nothing says “fucked up” like being a _peacekeeper_.



Tell you what, when your lily-white entitled ass signs up for the military, you can let me know. 



P@triot said:


> Um...the “Iran Agreement” was money in exchange for hostages (hostages that Barack Insane Obama handed Iran by telling his own Navy to stand down and surrender).



You mean the guys who illegally violated Iran's territorial waters because some lazy officer wanted to take a shortcut?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...nothing says “fucked up” like being a _peacekeeper_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, when your lily-white entitled ass signs up for the military, you can let me know.
Click to expand...

“Entitled”? I’m not a Democrat. You’re the one who thinks he has a right to what other people earned.


----------



## sartre play

P@triot said:


> More indisputable evidence that conservative policy generates prosperity while liberal policy generates poverty and collapse.
> 
> With Income Tax Eliminated, $85 Million Flows Into Kansas


OLD news, it just kept getting worse, till even Republicans revolted against Brownback, as Kansas slipped down the list of doing ok states.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> You mean the guys who illegally violated Iran's territorial waters because some lazy officer wanted to take a shortcut?


Yeah...it’s so “logical” to _surrender_ because you inadvertently sailed into a certain section of water. Because that is the spirit of America. 

You really are the quintessential progressive, Joey. Give up. Quit. Surrender. Demand others provide for you.


----------



## P@triot

sartre play said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence that conservative policy generates prosperity while liberal policy generates poverty and collapse.
> 
> With Income Tax Eliminated, $85 Million Flows Into Kansas
> 
> 
> 
> OLD news, it just kept getting worse, till even Republicans revolted against Brownback, as Kansas slipped down the list of doing ok states.
Click to expand...

Facts are still *facts* - you can’t avoid them by calling them “old news”.


----------



## sartre play

P@triot said:


> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence that conservative policy generates prosperity while liberal policy generates poverty and collapse.
> 
> With Income Tax Eliminated, $85 Million Flows Into Kansas
> 
> 
> 
> OLD news, it just kept getting worse, till even Republicans revolted against Brownback, as Kansas slipped down the list of doing ok states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts are still *facts* - you can’t avoid them by calling them “old news”.
Click to expand...

The Fact is that Brownback's plan did not work, he called it the test case for the Republican trickle down plan of giving every thing to big business & they would create lots of jobs, it did not work. Kansas went slowly down into the toilet.  you I guess don't live in Kansas.


----------



## whitehall

The problem is that democrats thrive on anger and unrest. Barry Hussein promoted the use of food stamps to show the world that Americans are victims of poverty but he did nothing to increase employment or stimulate the economy. In fact Hussein seemed to go out of his way to keep the economy stagnated and stir up racial unrest because anger is the only way the democrat party gets votes. What is good for America is bad for the DNC. Tax breaks are good so democrats ran out of the room rather than than doing their duty that Americans hired them to do  by voting.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> “Entitled”? I’m not a Democrat. You’re the one who thinks he has a right to what other people earned.



No, you think you are entitled by the race and gender you were born with.

Born on Third and thought you hit a triple, buddy.


----------



## JoeB131

whitehall said:


> The problem is that democrats thrive on anger and unrest. Barry Hussein promoted the use of food stamps to show the world that Americans are victims of poverty but he did nothing to increase employment or stimulate the economy.



Except we went from 10% unemployment to 4.9% unemployment on his watch and recovered from the worst economic disaster in 80 years.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Entitled”? I’m not a Democrat. You’re the one who thinks he has a right to what other people earned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you think you are entitled by the race and gender you were born with.
> 
> Born on Third and thought you hit a triple, buddy.
Click to expand...

By nature of being born in the United States, you too were “born on third”. But like all lazy, entitled, helpless progressive snowflakes, you cry that you “struck out”.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that democrats thrive on anger and unrest. Barry Hussein promoted the use of food stamps to show the world that Americans are victims of poverty but he did nothing to increase employment or stimulate the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except we went from 10% unemployment to 4.9% unemployment on his watch and recovered from the worst economic disaster in 80 years.
Click to expand...

Uh...we went from 7% unemployment to over 10% unemployment on Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats watch. That’s when the American people turned the entire nation over to the Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms (remember the “shellacking”?). They in turn implemented proven conservative policy and the turn around was under way (in spite of Barack Insane Obama’s best efforts to collapse the U.S. economy).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> By nature of being born in the United States, you too were “born on third”. But like all lazy, entitled, helpless progressive snowflakes, you cry that you “struck out”.



Actually, I've dealt with shit in my life that would leave your pansy entitled ass crying.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Uh...we went from 7% unemployment to over 10% unemployment on Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats watch.



Uh, dummy, the economy was in free-fall when Obama got there, Bush and his rich cronies screwed it up so bad, and left the rest of us holding the bag.  Were you fucking asleep during 2008?  Well, either than or in High School.  I'm guessing the latter.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By nature of being born in the United States, you too were “born on third”. But like all lazy, entitled, helpless progressive snowflakes, you cry that you “struck out”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've dealt with shit in my life that would leave your pansy entitled ass crying.
Click to expand...

Whether you have or not, you were _still_ “born on third” (and you _still_ cry that the world owes you).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...we went from 7% unemployment to over 10% unemployment on Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, dummy, the economy was in free-fall when Obama got there, Bush and his rich cronies screwed it up so bad, and left the rest of us holding the bag.  Were you fucking asleep during 2008?  Well, either than or in High School.  I'm guessing the latter.
Click to expand...

Uh...unemployment *never* exceeded 7% under George W. Bush and climbed to over 10% under the Dumbocrats watch after they “promised” that it would never reach 8% if we passed their illegal/unconstitutional, idiotic “stimulus package”.


----------



## ScienceRocks

The blue print of the 20th century was
1. Anti-trust as one or two corporations controlling the industry is bad for the industry
2. Strong unions---The workers deserve good pay!

Today we'd also need to consider fining and raising taxes on anyone that offshores or outsources their business.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Whether you have or not, you were _still_ “born on third” (and you _still_ cry that the world owes you).



I don't cry the world owes me.  Fuck, man, I don't even abuse my veteran status that much.   



P@triot said:


> Uh...unemployment *never* exceeded 7% under George W. Bush and climbed to over 10% under the Dumbocrats watch after they “promised” that it would never reach 8% if we passed their illegal/unconstitutional, idiotic “stimulus package”.



It was at 7.8 when he left and companies were shedding 500,000 jobs a month.  Again, I realize you were in High School when this happened, so I can understand if you don't have a really good memory of it.


----------



## P@triot

ScienceRocks said:


> The blue print of the 20th century was
> 1. Anti-trust as one or two corporations controlling the industry is bad for the industry
> 2. Strong unions---The *workers* deserve good pay!
> 
> Today we'd also need to consider fining and raising taxes on anyone that offshores or outsources their business.


Ah yes...the communist mentality. 

The “_worker*s*_” don’t deserve a damn thing. The worker (ie the individual) *earns* exactly what they are worth. No less. No more.


----------



## P@triot

sartre play said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sartre play said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More indisputable evidence that conservative policy generates prosperity while liberal policy generates poverty and collapse.
> 
> With Income Tax Eliminated, $85 Million Flows Into Kansas
> 
> 
> 
> OLD news, it just kept getting worse, till even Republicans revolted against Brownback, as Kansas slipped down the list of doing ok states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts are still *facts* - you can’t avoid them by calling them “old news”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Fact is that Brownback's plan did not work, he called it the test case for the Republican trickle down plan of giving every thing to big business & they would create lots of jobs, it did not work. Kansas went slowly down into the toilet.  you I guess don't live in Kansas.
Click to expand...

It clearly did work as *$85 million* flowed into Kansas...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> It was at 7.8 when he left and companies were shedding 500,000 jobs a month.  Again, I realize you were in High School when this happened, so I can understand if you don't have a really good memory of it.


I’m pretty sure it was 7.4% when Bush’s left and companies were “shedding” 500,000 jobs per month on news that a radical, anti-American had been elected to the White House and the Dumbocrats would be in control of everything. That’s what happens when a devout marxist goes around campaigning on “capitalism is evil” and “I think the way you do that is to spread the wealth”.

Just as - conversely - the market skyrocketed upon news that Donald Trump would be the next President of the United States. That’s the way it works, junior. You’ll understand after you get out of high school and join the real world.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Ah yes...the communist mentality.
> 
> The “_worker*s*_” don’t deserve a damn thing. The worker (ie the individual) *earns* exactly what they are worth. No less. No more.



So if we all decide to tax the rich at 90% and impose a $15.00 minimum wage, that's what workers deserve, right? 



P@triot said:


> I’m pretty sure it was 7.4% when Bush’s left and companies were “shedding” 500,000 jobs per month on news that a radical, anti-American had been elected to the White House and the Dumbocrats would be in control of everything. That’s what happens when a devout marxist goes around campaigning on “capitalism is evil” and “I think the way you do that is to spread the wealth”.



It was shedding 500K jobs a month before Obama got there... well before. 

Capitalism is evil.  



P@triot said:


> Just as - conversely - the market skyrocketed upon news that Donald Trump would be the next President of the United States. That’s the way it works, junior. You’ll understand after you get out of high school and join the real world.



Wait, guy.  The Stock Market gained more under Obama that  it did under the Orange Shitgibbon. Not that the stock market really matters to most people.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes...the communist mentality.
> 
> The “_worker*s*_” don’t deserve a damn thing. The worker (ie the individual) *earns* exactly what they are worth. No less. No more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we all decide to tax the rich at 90% and impose a $15.00 minimum wage, that's what workers deserve, right?
Click to expand...

Except that that is *not* the definition of “deserve”. That is the definition of coercion, _stupid_. 

If a worker deserved $15.00 per hour, they would receive it without “*imposing*” it. I make exponentially more than $15.00 per hour and nobody had to impose it on my employer. Gee...imagine that.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Capitalism is evil.


The people of Venezuela would vehemently disagree with you...


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Except that that is *not* the definition of “deserve”. That is the definition of coercion, _stupid_.
> 
> If a worker deserved $15.00 per hour, they would receive it without “*imposing*” it. I make exponentially more than $15.00 per hour and nobody had to impose it on my employer. Gee...imagine that.



Poodle, I'm sure you make a whole whopping $16.50 fetching coffee for the great man.... 

But some day when you grow up, you'll realize how easily they can find someone who will work for 16.25 and kiss ass a lot harder.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Wait, guy.  The Stock Market gained more under Obama that  it did under the Orange Shitgibbon.


No it didn’t, snowflake. The stock market gained more under a Republican-controlled House, states, counties, and local municipalities (2010 - 2017) than it did under Dumbocrat-controlled White House, House, Senate (2008 - 2010) when they nearly collapsed the global economy with their stupidity.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, I'm sure you make a whole whopping $16.50 fetching coffee for the great man....


You were also “sure” that Hitlery Clinton would be sitting in the Oval Office this morning


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No it didn’t, snowflake. The stock market gained more under a Republican-controlled House, states, counties, and local municipalities (2010 - 2017) than it did under Dumbocrat-controlled White House, House, Senate (2008 - 2010) when they nearly collapsed the global economy with their stupidity.



That's not true, either. 












When I was growing up in the 1970's... my parents used to say, "Republicans bring us recessions, Democrats bring us wars." 

Now Republicans bring us both...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn’t, snowflake. The stock market gained more under a Republican-controlled House, states, counties, and local municipalities (2010 - 2017) than it did under Dumbocrat-controlled White House, House, Senate (2008 - 2010) when they nearly collapsed the global economy with their stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true, either.
Click to expand...

It is true...which is why you had to resort to a graph showing *average* GDP growth instead of *actual* GDP growth. It’s an old (and weak) trick the left resorts to because data never backs up their position.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> It is true...which is why you had to resort to a graph showing *average* GDP growth instead of *actual* GDP growth. It’s an old (and weak) trick the left resorts to because data never backs up their position.



Actually it does.  

The last FOUR count them FOUR recessions have been with Republicans in charge.  

This isn't a fluke, buddy, it's a design feature.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true...which is why you had to resort to a graph showing *average* GDP growth instead of *actual* GDP growth. It’s an old (and weak) trick the left resorts to because data never backs up their position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> The last FOUR count them FOUR recessions have been with Republicans in charge.
> 
> This isn't a fluke, buddy, it's a design feature.
Click to expand...

Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats were in charge when the economy went to hell, chief. Like all lefties you can’t tell the truth even when the truth is universally known.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats were in charge when the economy went to hell, chief. Like all lefties you can’t tell the truth even when the truth is universally known.



Really, I seem to remember THIS GUY being in charge the last time the economy went into the shitter. 






Again, I have to conclude you were probably too young to remember what 2008 and the crash were like, because it was pretty fucking bad.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats were in charge when the economy went to hell, chief. Like all lefties you can’t tell the truth even when the truth is universally known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, I seem to remember THIS GUY being in charge the last time the economy went into the shitter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have to conclude you were probably too young to remember what 2008 and the crash were like, because it was pretty fucking bad.
Click to expand...

That’s funny - unemployment never went above 7.4% under GWB. After Obama “promised” that it would never hit 8% if we passed his stimulus package it skyrocketed to over 10%. Only in the mind of a progressive is 7% unemployment without a trillion in pork spending worse than 10% unemployment with a trillion in pork spending.

In fact - the _only_ time we ever see double-digit unemployment is when the Dumbocrats are in charge (FDR and the Great Depression, Barack Insane Obama and the Great Recession).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> hat’s funny - unemployment never went above 7.4% under GWB. After Obama “promised” that it would never hit 8% if we passed his stimulus package it skyrocketed to over 10%. Only in the mind of a progressive is 7% unemployment without a trillion in pork spending worse than 10% unemployment with a trillion in pork spending.



except we never passed the Stimulus package all the economists said we needed.  We passed a 300 Billion a year package over three years.  That's like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.  

So your argument was that since only HALF the house was on fire when Bush ran out the door with an empty can of gasoline, that makes it Obama's fault he didn't put the fire out fast enough? 



P@triot said:


> In fact - the _only_ time we ever see double-digit unemployment is when the Dumbocrats are in charge (FDR and the Great Depression, Barack Insane Obama and the Great Recession).



That's not true, iether.  Unemployment his 11.3% under Ronnie Ray-gun in  1983.  You'd know this if you weren't 25.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat’s funny - unemployment never went above 7.4% under GWB. After Obama “promised” that it would never hit 8% if we passed his stimulus package it skyrocketed to over 10%. Only in the mind of a progressive is 7% unemployment without a trillion in pork spending worse than 10% unemployment with a trillion in pork spending.
> 
> 
> 
> except we never passed the Stimulus package all the economists said we needed.
Click to expand...

Is there _anything_ you won’t *lie* about? The Dumbocrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, snowflake. It was the exact “stimulus” Obama wanted. And the one he promised that would prevent unemployment from hitting 8%. Instead, it skyrocketed to over 10%. That’s what happens when the Dumbocrats are in charge. Economic collapse.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Is there _anything_ you won’t *lie* about? The Dumbocrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, snowflake. It was the exact “stimulus” Obama wanted.



No, it wasn't. not even fucking close.  It was 1 Trillion over three years, a third of which were tax cuts the GOP Demanded, and a third of which were payments to states to make up for lost revenues.... 

Fact is, the last four recessions have been on Republican Watches.  So will the next one that happens on Trump's watch, but you'll do some mental backflips you heard on hate radio to make that the Democrats fault, too.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat’s funny - unemployment never went above 7.4% under GWB. After Obama “promised” that it would never hit 8% if we passed his stimulus package it skyrocketed to over 10%. Only in the mind of a progressive is 7% unemployment without a trillion in pork spending worse than 10% unemployment with a trillion in pork spending.
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument was that since only HALF the house was on fire when Bush ran out the door with an empty can of gasoline, that makes it Obama's fault he didn't put the fire out fast enough?
Click to expand...

I don’t have an “argument”, snowflake. I have *facts*. And the *facts* show that when George W. Bush left the White House, the only fire was in the fire place. Barack Insane Obama stepped in determined to burn the house to the ground. He came close (about the only thing he’s ever “achieved” in his miserable life). Thankfully the American people stepped in and stopped him before he could finish the job.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there _anything_ you won’t *lie* about? The Dumbocrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, snowflake. It was the exact “stimulus” Obama wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't. not even fucking close.  It was 1 Trillion over three years, a third of which were *tax cuts the GOP Demanded*, and a third of which were payments to states to make up for lost revenues....
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! The GOP were a super-minority. They were in no position to “demand” _anything_. Again...is there anything you won’t *lie* about? It was the exact stimulus plan that Barack Insane Obama wanted. He got it and it failed. It always does with Dumbocrats.

Life all fascists, you’re desperately trying to rewrite history. Unfortunately for you, you live in the age of technology where everything is recorded, catalogued, documented, and widely available on the internet.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Fact is, the last four recessions have been on Republican Watches.


Let’s see...

2009 - Barack Insane Obama (Dumbocrat)
1979 - Jimmy Carter (Dumbocrat)
1930’s - FDR (Dumbocrats)

You’re track record of *lying* is as pitiful as the Dumbocrats track record of the economy.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I don’t have an “argument”, snowflake. I have *facts*. And the *facts* show that when George W. Bush left the White House, the only fire was in the fire place.



Oh, come on, guy.  Unemployment increased from 4.5% to 8% in a six month period, the stock market had lost half its value, companies like Bear-Sterns and AIG had completely collapsed and the economy lost trillions of dollars in equity.  

Bush truly fucked these things up, and Obama was left to clean up the mess, which he did a pretty good job of, which is why he got a second term. 



P@triot said:


> Thankfully the American people stepped in and stopped him before he could finish the job.



Uh, the American people voted for Hillary, by about 3 million votes. 

SO what happened was the EC and Electoral College came in after he fixed everything and put a madman in charge.  

We will all pay for it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t have an “argument”, snowflake. I have *facts*. And the *facts* show that when George W. Bush left the White House, the only fire was in the fire place.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come on, guy.  Unemployment increased from 4.5% to 8%.
Click to expand...

Unemployment *never* hit 8% under George W. Bush. Once again we see you *lying*. Barack Insane Obama couldn’t have promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8% if it was _already_ at 8%.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully the American people stepped in and stopped him before he could finish the job.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the American people voted for Hillary, by about 3 million votes.
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about 2017... 

The American people stepped in at the 2010 mid-terms and gave the Dumbocrats a historic ass-kicking from coast-to-coast. Republicans went to work implementing proven conservative policy and we’ve been flourishing ever since.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Unemployment *never* hit 8% under George W. Bush.



Uh, yeah, it did.  And to the point, he's the one who screwed the pooch on the economy.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The American people stepped in at the 2010 mid-terms and gave the Dumbocrats a historic ass-kicking from coast-to-coast.



Meh, not really.  You didn't even take the senate.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment *never* hit 8% under George W. Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh, yeah, it did*.  And to the point, he's the one who screwed the pooch on the economy.
Click to expand...

I can’t wrap my head around the progressives belief that they can *lie* in the era of the internet. Here it is snowflake - indisputable proof that you’re a pathological liar and a fragile snowflake incapable of accepting reality...



 
United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people stepped in at the 2010 mid-terms and gave the Dumbocrats a historic ass-kicking from coast-to-coast.
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, not really.  You didn't even take the senate.
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! That’s not the metric for a “historic ass-kicking”. Thanks for playing.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I can’t wrap my head around the progressives belief that they can *lie* in the era of the internet. Here it is snowflake - indisputable proof that you’re a pathological liar and a fragile snowflake incapable of accepting reality...



Reality- Bush wrecked the economy. It collapsed on his watch.  this isn't even in dispute, Poodle.  

If he as so great, Jeb would have won the nomination.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t wrap my head around the progressives belief that they can *lie* in the era of the internet. Here it is snowflake - indisputable proof that you’re a pathological liar and a fragile snowflake incapable of accepting reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality- Bush wrecked the economy. It collapsed on his watch.  this isn't even in dispute, Poodle.
> 
> If he as so great, Jeb would have won the nomination.
Click to expand...

Reality...the chart, statistics, and *facts* don't lie. But you sure as hell do.

The economy was doing quite well under George W. Bush until the Dumbocrats took control of the House and the Senate. And shit went absolutely biblical when the radical marxist took over the White House. Then the American people gave the Dumbocrats a historical ass kicking and over night things started to improve. Now that Republican's have control nation wide at the federal, state, and local level, we're seeing record numbers in the stock market, 4% unemployment, and yet another period of conservative prosperity.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The economy was doing quite well under George W. Bush until the Dumbocrats took control of the House and the Senate.



Not really.  Did you miss the whole 2001 - 2003 recession?  The only good years Bush had were 2004 to MAYBE 2006.  The other five years of his presidency were pretty miserable 

WHICH IS WHY he lost control of Congress.  



P@triot said:


> And shit went absolutely biblical when the radical marxist took over the White House. Then the American people gave the Dumbocrats a historical ass kicking and over night things started to improve. Now that Republican's have control nation wide at the federal, state, and local level, we're seeing record numbers in the stock market, 4% unemployment, and yet another period of conservative prosperity.



Poodle, sweetie, when the Trump Recession hits, you'll do similar handstands to tell us it wasn't his fault. 

But the last four recessions have been with Republican Presidents.  It's not a bug, it's a design feature.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was doing quite well under George W. Bush until the Dumbocrats took control of the House and the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  Did you miss the whole 2001 - 2003 recession?
Click to expand...

Oh...you mean the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when our financial nerve center was wiped out because Bill Clinton refused to tackle Al Qaeda head-on? Dumb ass.

If Dumbocrats had been in charge, that “recession” would have lasted 8 years. Instead, it was barely a blip on the radar thanks to proven conservative policy.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> WHICH IS WHY he lost control of Congress.


Uh....no, snowflake. If you weren’t in pre-school at that time, you would know that he lost control of Congress because the left-wing media pushed the “Bush lied, people died” false narrative. That was supplemented by left-wing lunatics like Jodi Evans and Susan Benjamin who - just like yourself - couldn’t accept that the American people had rejected communism and embraced proven conservative policy from Republican representatives.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Oh...you mean the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when our financial nerve center was wiped out because Bill Clinton refused to tackle Al Qaeda head-on? Dumb ass.



The economy was already tanking before 9/11, buddy.  You know, where Bush said, "You've covered your ass, then", when the CIA told him Bin Laden was about to attack us. 



P@triot said:


> If Dumbocrats had been in charge, that “recession” would have lasted 8 years. Instead, it was barely a blip on the radar thanks to proven conservative policy.



Bullshit. If you weren't in grade school at the time, you'd know the main cause of the 2001 recession was excess inventories.  Manufacturing had too much stock sitting in warehouses that no one was buying.  The usual "Let's cut taxes for rich people" didn't fix that. The shit still sat in warehouses and people stayed unemployed because they didn't need anyone to make new ones.  

The ONLY reason why we got out of that was with increased war spending, we had a usual Keynesian solution. Government spends more, people go back to work. 



P@triot said:


> Uh....no, snowflake. If you weren’t in pre-school at that time, you would know that he lost control of Congress because the left-wing media pushed the “Bush lied, people died” false narrative.



Um... let's look at that. 

Bush said Saddam had nukes. (not WMD's. Nukes!) 
Saddam didn't have Nukes.  He didn't have Anthrax. He didn't have missiles.  He wasn't in cahoots with Al Qaeda.  

Bush lied. People died. 



P@triot said:


> That was supplemented by left-wing lunatics like Jodi Evans and Susan Benjamin who



Yeah, who?  Who the fuck are they? 



P@triot said:


> couldn’t accept that the American people had rejected communism and embraced proven conservative policy from Republican representatives.



Except Americans did nothing of the sort.  Al Gore won the popular vote.  They wanted more of the same. Nobody "embraced" conservatism.  In fact, you guys haven't won an honest election since 1988.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...you mean the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when our financial nerve center was wiped out because Bill Clinton refused to tackle Al Qaeda head-on? Dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The economy was already tanking before 9/11, buddy.
Click to expand...

No it wasn’t, snowflake. No matter how many times you *lie*, you can’t rewrite history. The economy was just fine until 9/11 and that is an indisputable fact.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Dumbocrats had been in charge, that “recession” would have lasted 8 years. Instead, it was barely a blip on the radar thanks to proven conservative policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If you weren't in grade school at the time, you'd know the main cause of the 2001 recession was excess inventories.  Manufacturing had too much stock sitting in warehouses that no one was buying.  The usual "Let's cut taxes for rich people" didn't fix that. The shit still sat in warehouses and people stayed unemployed because they didn't need anyone to make new ones.
Click to expand...

Another post, another *lie* by angry little Joey. The Bush tax cuts worked _flawlessly_. The economy rebounded overnight.

Furthermore - you just defeated your own position. You’re hilariously idiotic “cause” aside (too much stock sitting in warehouses...LMAO!!!!!), the only way to get rid of that stock is to have it purchased. The only way it can be purchased is for people to have the money to buy it. And Bush put more money in our pockets with the tax cuts. You’re so dumb...you just defeated yourself. Thanks for playing!


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> No it wasn’t, snowflake. No matter how many times you *lie*, you can’t rewrite history. The economy was just fine until 9/11 and that is an indisputable fact.



No, it wasn't. Company I was working for was doing layoffs all summer in 2001.  They started with the design engineers and the moved their way through planning.  The 2001 Recession began in March, six months before 9/11.  

Everyone agrees the proximate cause of the 2001 Recession was the bursting of the Tech bubble. 



P@triot said:


> Another post, another *lie* by angry little Joey. The Bush tax cuts worked _flawlessly_. The economy rebounded overnight.



Actually, the economy was pretty much shit until 2004, which is why Bush only BARELY beat John Kerry.  



P@triot said:


> Furthermore - you just defeated your own position. You’re hilariously idiotic “cause” aside (too much stock sitting in warehouses...LMAO!!!!!), the only way to get rid of that stock is to have it purchased. The only way it can be purchased is for people to have the money to buy it. And Bush put more money in our pockets with the tax cuts. You’re so dumb...you just defeated yourself. Thanks for playing!



No, people didn't buy that stuff because Bush gave working class families a whopping $300.00 (which the democrats actually had to fight to get for them).  

Supply side doesn't work. It never works.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn’t, snowflake. No matter how many times you *lie*, you can’t rewrite history. The economy was just fine until 9/11 and that is an indisputable fact.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't. Company I was working for was doing layoffs all summer in 2001.
Click to expand...

How precious...the teenager uses his anectodal “evidence” of being laid off from his first job painting of painting houses as “proof” that the economy was bad.

Snowflake...of course a company you worked for would lay off people. You’re lazy. Lazy people bring down companies.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> No, people didn't buy that stuff because Bush gave working class families a whopping $300.00 (*which the democrats actually had to fight to get for them*).


Now _that_ is hilarious... You are now arguing that the “Bush tax cuts” (your words) were actually the result of the Democrats “fighting for those tax cuts” (your words _again_).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Supply side doesn't work. It never works.


Supply is the availability of material/product. Not the availability of money. Freaking hilarious that lefties refer to that as “supply side”


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Al Gore won the popular vote.


Once you are in high school, you’ll take a civics class where you’ll learn that the “popular vote” does *not* elect the president. The Electoral College does.

This has been explained to you hundreds of times already but I do realize that you are young and suffering from learning disability.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> How precious...the teenager uses his anectodal “evidence” of being laid off from his first job painting of painting houses as “proof” that the economy was bad.



Actually, more like my third post army job.... and yeah, the Japanese owned company I worked for at the time laid off people starting in March of 2001.  Not an Arab in sight. 



P@triot said:


> Snowflake...of course a company you worked for would lay off people. You’re lazy. Lazy people bring down companies.



Companies lay people off all the time....  you'd know this if you actually worked. 



P@triot said:


> Now _that_ is hilarious... You are now arguing that the “Bush tax cuts” (your words) were actually the result of the Democrats “fighting for those tax cuts” (your words _again_).



Again, that you are too dumb to follow a discussion isn't my problem. Did Santa bring you extra stupid pills for Christmas. 



P@triot said:


> Once you are in high school, you’ll take a civics class where you’ll learn that the “popular vote” does *not* elect the president. The Electoral College does.



Look, guy, you weren't arguing civics. You said...

_couldn’t accept that the American people had rejected communism and embraced proven conservative policy from Republican representatives._ 

Except they did nothing of the sort. MORE people voted for Al Gore. MORE people voted for Hillary Clinton. THE PEOPLE said no. 

That these buffoons won on technicalities, tells me that you guys can't win without gaming the system.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> That these buffoons won on technicalities, tells me that you guys can't win without gaming the system.


The system *wasn’t* “gamed”. Everyone knew the rules going in. The Dumbocrats can’t win by the rules. Damn near the _entire_ country is red...


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now _that_ is hilarious... You are now arguing that the “Bush tax cuts” (your words) were actually the result of the Democrats “fighting for those tax cuts” (your words _again_).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that you are too dumb to follow a discussion isn't my problem. Did Santa bring you extra stupid pills for Christmas.
Click to expand...

Says the young kid who claims the “Bush Tax Cuts” were the results of the Democrats “fighting for those tax cuts”.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The system *wasn’t* “gamed”. Everyone knew the rules going in. The Dumbocrats can’t win by the rules. Damn near the _entire_ country is red...



And Trump still got less votes..... 

Pssst. Pssst.  In Democracy, we don't let land vote, we let people vote.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Says the young kid who claims the “Bush Tax Cuts” were the results of the Democrats “fighting for those tax cuts”.



NO, the dumb kid is the one who thinks the measly $300 most of us got (We got more under the Obama Tax initatives in 2009 and 2010) was the problem. It wasn't. It was the huge giveaways to the rich that did nothing to boost the economy and ballooned the national debt.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system *wasn’t* “gamed”. Everyone knew the rules going in. The Dumbocrats can’t win by the rules. Damn near the _entire_ country is red...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Trump still got less votes.....
> 
> Pssst. Pssst.  In Democracy, we don't let land vote, we let people vote.
Click to expand...

Pssst..._stupid_...

We are not a “democracy” (we are a republic)
Land *didn’t* vote - people did.
The chart represents the people of those states
I can see why you struggle to keep a job.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> It was the huge giveaways to the rich that did nothing to boost the economy and ballooned the national debt.


Nothing was “given” to the wealthy, son. Nothing. The government simply took a little bit less of what they didn’t have a right to anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Pssst..._stupid_...
> 
> We are not a “democracy” (we are a republic)
> Land *didn’t* vote - people did.



Exactly- and three million MORE of them voted for Mrs. Clinton.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Nothing was “given” to the wealthy, son. Nothing. The government simply took a little bit less of what they didn’t have a right to anyway.



Guy, the rich can't exist without government. Someone would just kill them and take their shit.


----------



## Thinker101

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst..._stupid_...
> 
> We are not a “democracy” (we are a republic)
> Land *didn’t* vote - people did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly- and three million MORE of them voted for Mrs. Clinton.
Click to expand...


Might I suggest a political science class.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst..._stupid_...
> 
> We are not a “democracy” (we are a republic)
> Land *didn’t* vote - people did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly- and three million MORE of them voted for Mrs. Clinton.
Click to expand...

The people of the majority of the states voted for *President Trump*. It was a bloodbath and Hitlery got her ass kicked. That’s why she’s sitting at home and *President Trump* is sitting in the Oval Office right now.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, the rich can't exist without government. Someone would just kill them and take their shit.


The wealthy can afford private security - and they have it. Nobody could kill them or take _anything_. Your irrelevant and very immature “point” illustrates your junior high mentality.


----------



## JoeB131

Thinker101 said:


> Might I suggest a political science class.



Why? You are focused on the mechanics. Yes, under the mechanics of a fucked up system devised by Slave Rapists from the 18th century, Trump gamed the system with help from the Russians.  

But the people CLEARLY said "No".


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The wealthy can afford private security - and they have it.



Then they'd be shot by their bodyguards. Because, hey, without government, who'd fucking stop them. 

Here's a reality you need to learn in your young life, little poodle, most morality is based on CONSEQUENCES. Government mostly exists to protect wealth.  Smart governments make sure it is evenly distributed.  

Dumb governments end up like these assholes.


----------



## Thinker101

JoeB131 said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might I suggest a political science class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You are focused on the mechanics. Yes, under the mechanics of a fucked up system devised by Slave Rapists from the 18th century, Trump gamed the system with help from the Russians.
> 
> But the people CLEARLY said "No".
Click to expand...


Why is that, did they like Hillary's Russians better.


----------



## JoeB131

Thinker101 said:


> Why is that, did they like Hillary's Russians better.



Which Russians are those?  

Hey, guy, i get why Putin took out Hillary.... She totally messed with him. 

Why you think it's a good thing that he did is questionable.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> But the people CLEARLY said "No".


Yes they did. They clearly said “oh hell *no*!” to Hitlery Clinton.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Government mostly exists to protect wealth.  Smart governments make sure it is evenly distributed.


Uh...no, snowflake. Failed, collapsed governments make sure it is “evenly distributed”. It didn’t work in Cuba. It didn’t work in the former U.S.S.R. And it’s not working in Venezuela now. You’ll understand once you get into high school.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Yes they did. They clearly said “oh hell *no*!” to Hitlery Clinton.








Sorry, buddy, getting more votes is not saying "No".


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, buddy, getting more votes is not saying "No".


Sorry buddy...the popular vote is *not* used in the U.S. Presenting it as “evidence” is about as rational as presenting the bottom of my shoe as “evidence” of the efficiency of the iPhone.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Sorry buddy...the popular vote is *not* used in the U.S. Presenting it as “evidence” is about as rational as presenting the bottom of my shoe as “evidence” of the efficiency of the iPhone.



Okay, guy, let's try to get it nailed down... 

Trump didn't win the popular vote. Neither did Hitler. 

Trump did win under the mechanisms of government. So did Hitler. 

But in both cases, the people said, "NO!"


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry buddy...the popular vote is *not* used in the U.S. Presenting it as “evidence” is about as rational as presenting the bottom of my shoe as “evidence” of the efficiency of the iPhone.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, let's try to get it nailed down...
Click to expand...

I’ve been trying to get it nailed down - but you’re a slow learner.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> I’ve been trying to get it nailed down - but you’re a slow learner.



No, guy, you keep avoiding the point.  

No one is arguing that Trump won the archaic, idiotic, racist method we use to elect presidents. 

What he doesn't have is a mandate from the people. The people clearly, loudly and decisively said "No".


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve been trying to get it nailed down - but you’re a slow learner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, you keep avoiding the point.
> 
> No one is arguing that Trump won the archaic, idiotic, racist method we use to elect presidents.
> 
> What he doesn't have is a mandate from the people. The people clearly, loudly and decisively said "No".
Click to expand...

The people _are_ that system you refer to as “archaic, idiotic, and racist” (as all sore losers do).


----------



## Flash

Just think, these stupid Moon Bats all think that prosperity is somehow magically created when the filthy government takes the money that was earned by productive people and given away to the welfare queens, illegal aliens, Muslim refugees, union bosses and environmental wackos.

That is why after eight years of that stupidity under the affirmative action asshole we had increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and dismal economic growth.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The people _are_ that system you refer to as “archaic, idiotic, and racist” (as all sore losers do).



No, the people are the people who vote.  More of them voted for Hillary.  The people said no to Trump.  They'll say it a bit louder in 2018.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.


Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> An accidental moment of honesty from Joseph...



You must be losing the argument pretty bad to misrepresent my quotes... 

Reported.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people _are_ that system you refer to as “archaic, idiotic, and racist” (as all sore losers do).
> 
> 
> 
> No, the people are the people who vote.
Click to expand...

Yep...and the people of way more states voted for *President Trump* than they did for Hitlery Clinton.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An accidental moment of honesty from Joseph...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be losing the argument pretty bad to misrepresent my quotes...
> 
> Reported.
Click to expand...

You can “report” all you snowflake - I didn’t misrepresent _anything_. I didn’t alter your quote one iota.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we are all used to you people engaging in actions which are detrimental to your own self-interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, this one statement quite nicely sums up the entire electorate which voted for don trump.
> 
> Hope they like paying for for a fast lane on the internet highway...
Click to expand...

The internet has existed for decades without “Net Neutrality” and *nobody* _ever_ had to pay for a “fast lane”.

It is hilarious how easily duped the left-wing voter is...


----------



## depotoo

initforme said:


> Texas is an ugly place to live...terrible....but I do like the tax rate.


Bull.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).
Click to expand...


Are you an idiot or just pretend to be one?


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an idiot or just pretend to be one?
Click to expand...

Are you an idiot or are you a liar? No corporation left the United States because it was convenient or because they wanted to. They left the U.S. because idiot left-wing anti-business policies like the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the most oppressive regulations in the world, and greedy unions *drove* them out of the U.S. Those are the facts and they are completely indisputable.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an idiot or just pretend to be one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an idiot or are you a liar? No corporation left the United States because it was convenient or because they wanted to. They left the U.S. because idiot left-wing anti-business policies like the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the most oppressive regulations in the world, and greedy unions *drove* them out of the U.S. Those are the facts and they are completely indisputable.
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an idiot or just pretend to be one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an idiot or are you a liar? No corporation left the United States because it was convenient or because they wanted to. They left the U.S. because idiot left-wing anti-business policies like the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the most oppressive regulations in the world, and greedy unions *drove* them out of the U.S. Those are the facts and they are completely indisputable.
Click to expand...



The world doesn't need more idiots, stop being one.


----------



## depotoo

Stop being a troll





otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an idiot or just pretend to be one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an idiot or are you a liar? No corporation left the United States because it was convenient or because they wanted to. They left the U.S. because idiot left-wing anti-business policies like the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the most oppressive regulations in the world, and greedy unions *drove* them out of the U.S. Those are the facts and they are completely indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ron reagan and party in the 1980's pushed "outsourcing" as a way of making more money at the expense of the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Dumbocrat Party pushed the “success is evil” narrative so they could steal wealth in the form of taxes and take control in the form of regulations - all of which made doing business in the U.S. impossible (at the expense of the working class).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an idiot or just pretend to be one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you an idiot or are you a liar? No corporation left the United States because it was convenient or because they wanted to. They left the U.S. because idiot left-wing anti-business policies like the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the most oppressive regulations in the world, and greedy unions *drove* them out of the U.S. Those are the facts and they are completely indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The world doesn't need more idiots, stop being one.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> The world doesn't need more idiots, stop being one.


Vintage idiot left-wing response to *facts* that don’t align with their brainwashed ideology.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world doesn't need more idiots, stop being one.
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage idiot left-wing response to *facts* that don’t align with their brainwashed ideology.
Click to expand...


What "facts" are you referring too?


----------



## JoeB131

otto105 said:


> What "facts" are you referring too?



THe ones that exist in his head he read in Atlas Shrugged when he was a kid.  

Nobody tell him that Ayn Rand died using Medicare and Social Security because no one was buying her crappy books.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world doesn't need more idiots, stop being one.
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage idiot left-wing response to *facts* that don’t align with their brainwashed ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "facts" are you referring too?
Click to expand...

That failed, idiotic left-wing policy drove jobs out of the U.S. There isn’t a corporation in U.S. history that wanted to move their operations overseas. It’s a major pain in the ass, it places your operations under less stable governments, and it’s extremely costly. But sadly, it’s cheaper than dealing with the Dumbocrats who handed corporations the highest tax rates in the world, the most costly and stifling regulations in the world, and greedy unions. Those are the indisputable *facts*.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Nobody tell him that Ayn Rand died using Medicare and Social Security because no one was buying her crappy books.


Ayn Rand died using Social Security & Medicaid because the government took 60% of what she *earned* and left her with nothing. Exactly what what you advocate for every day because you want everyone beholden to government (power) and you want to be able to mooch off of society like a parasite (money).


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That failed, idiotic left-wing policy drove jobs out of the U.S. There isn’t a corporation in U.S. history that wanted to move their operations overseas. It’s a major pain in the ass, it places your operations under less stable governments, and it’s extremely costly.



Oh, bullshit. Most companies would move overseas if they can get cheaper labor, because those government will let them do to workers and the environment what we refuse to let them do to ours. 

Your solution is to race to the bottom. 



P@triot said:


> Ayn Rand died using Social Security & Medicaid because the government took 60% of what she *earned* and left her with nothing.



She didn't get taxed at nearly that rate.  She just wasn't making that much money.


----------



## otto105

Flash said:


> Just think, these stupid Moon Bats all think that prosperity is somehow magically created when the filthy government takes the money that was earned by productive people and given away to the welfare queens, illegal aliens, Muslim refugees, union bosses and environmental wackos.
> 
> That is why after eight years of that stupidity under the affirmative action asshole we had increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and dismal economic growth.



Bob lee, the increase in poverty occured after the republic inspired Great Recession and under President Obama decreased, family income also decreased because of the Great Recession. In regard to household or average incomes both recovered and increased under President Barack Hussein Obama two terms in office so much so the the orange idiot now claims credit for it.

Tremendous debt? You assholes want to talk about debt after passing the greatest debt funded tax heist in our history??? You can throw increased income disparity in that giant load too. Like republic voters even care about those issues.


----------



## Flash

otto105 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, these stupid Moon Bats all think that prosperity is somehow magically created when the filthy government takes the money that was earned by productive people and given away to the welfare queens, illegal aliens, Muslim refugees, union bosses and environmental wackos.
> 
> That is why after eight years of that stupidity under the affirmative action asshole we had increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and dismal economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob lee, the increase in poverty occured after the republic inspired Great Recession and under President Obama decreased, family income also decreased because of the Great Recession. In regard to household or average incomes both recovered and increased under President Barack Hussein Obama two terms in office so much so the the orange idiot now claims credit for it.
> 
> Tremendous debt? You assholes want to talk about debt after passing the greatest debt funded tax heist in our history??? You can throw increased income disparity in that giant load too. Like republic voters even care about those issues.
Click to expand...



You are confused Moon Bat.

The economy was doing fine for six years under Bush.

It went to hell when that 2006 Democrat elected Congress took over. 

You know what Congress that was, don't you?  The one led by Barney Queerboy, Tits Peloski, Dirty Harry and that worthless affirmative action Negro from the Moon Bat state of Illinois.  They fucked everything up and allowed the CRA chickens to come home to roost.  They almost destroyed our economy.  Shame on them!  What the hell were they thinking with that  CRA that put pressure on lenders to give credit to people that had neither the inclination or means to pay back the loans?  You know, for social justice reason to inure more minority home ownership.  What could possibly go wrong?

Then that worthless piece of shit affirmative action Negro became President and poverty increased, family income decreased, debt soared, income disparity increased and we had eight years of dismal economic growth.   Terrible President.

It is a great thing that Trump was elected because he is undoing all that damage done by the worthless affirmative action Negro.  Good thing Crooked Hillary wasn't elected or else the country would have continued to be a shihole instead of becoming great again. 

Stop blaming Obama's failures on somebody else.  It just makes you look like a fool when you post that silly crap.


----------



## otto105

Flash said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just think, these stupid Moon Bats all think that prosperity is somehow magically created when the filthy government takes the money that was earned by productive people and given away to the welfare queens, illegal aliens, Muslim refugees, union bosses and environmental wackos.
> 
> That is why after eight years of that stupidity under the affirmative action asshole we had increased poverty, decreased family income, tremendous debt, increased income disparity and dismal economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob lee, the increase in poverty occured after the republic inspired Great Recession and under President Obama decreased, family income also decreased because of the Great Recession. In regard to household or average incomes both recovered and increased under President Barack Hussein Obama two terms in office so much so the the orange idiot now claims credit for it.
> 
> Tremendous debt? You assholes want to talk about debt after passing the greatest debt funded tax heist in our history??? You can throw increased income disparity in that giant load too. Like republic voters even care about those issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> The economy was doing fine for six years under Bush.
> 
> It went to hell when that 2006 Democrat elected Congress took over.
> 
> You know what Congress that was, don't you?  The one led by Barney Queerboy, Tits Peloski, Dirty Harry and that worthless affirmative action Negro from the Moon Bat state of Illinois.  They fucked everything up and allowed the CRA chickens to come home to roost.  They almost destroyed our economy.  Shame on them!  What the hell were they thinking with that  CRA that put pressure on lenders to give credit to people that had neither the inclination or means to pay back the loans?  You know, for social justice reason to inure more minority home ownership.  What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> Then that worthless piece of shit affirmative action Negro became President and poverty increased, family income decreased, debt soared, income disparity increased and we had eight years of dismal economic growth.   Terrible President.
> 
> It is a great thing that Trump was elected because he is undoing all that damage done by the worthless affirmative action Negro.  Good thing Crooked Hillary wasn't elected or else the country would have continued to be a shihole instead of becoming great again.
> 
> Stop blaming Obama's failures on somebody else.  It just makes you look like a fool when you post that silly crap.
Click to expand...



bob lee, nothing I can do will make YOU look more like a bigoted fool than your own posts.

Well done. 


My work in this thread has concluded.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Your solution is to race to the bottom.


And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That failed, idiotic left-wing policy drove jobs out of the U.S. There isn’t a corporation in U.S. history that wanted to move their operations overseas. It’s a major pain in the ass, it places your operations under less stable governments, and it’s extremely costly.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, bullshit. Most companies would move overseas if they can get cheaper labor, because those government will let them do to workers and the environment what we refuse to let them do to ours.
Click to expand...

So you start out with “oh bullshit” and then you echo _everything_ I stated. 

There isn’t a corporation in U.S. history that *wanted* to move their operations overseas. It’s a major pain in the ass, it places your operations under less stable governments, there are language barriers, and it’s extremely costly. But when the Dumbocrats made doing business in the U.S. so costly that those other issues were a better deal, they did the only thing they could do. You greedy Dumbocrats pushed them out the door. Then you whined that they were no longer in the house to prepare your dinner for you.

It’s the sort of stupid that can only come from the left.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> You can throw increased income disparity in that giant load too.


There is no such thing as “income disparity” you mindless nitwit. There is only talent disparity and effort disparity.

Your income is tiny because both your brains and your effort are tiny.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Tremendous debt? You assholes want to talk about debt after passing the greatest debt funded tax heist in our history???


Yes...we do want to talk about debt. Because Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history _combined_ did in 235 years. It was unspeakably irresponsible and reckless (all of the things we’ve come to expect from the left).


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> My work in this thread has concluded.


Clearly so has your work in educating yourself. It would appear that concluded sometime around age 7 for you.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tremendous debt? You assholes want to talk about debt after passing the greatest debt funded tax heist in our history???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...we do want to talk about debt. Because Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history _combined_ did in 235 years. It was unspeakably irresponsible and reckless (all of the things we’ve come to expect from the left).
Click to expand...



Must be using phaxnews "facts".

Want to try again?


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution is to race to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
Click to expand...


Venezuela is not a socialist nation. Your assertion that it is shows a ignorance bias on your part.


----------



## Dale Smith

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution is to race to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not a socialist nation. Your assertion that it is shows a ignorance bias on your part.
Click to expand...


So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????


----------



## otto105

Dale Smith said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution is to race to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not a socialist nation. Your assertion that it is shows a ignorance bias on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????
Click to expand...


Dale, what in hell are you conflating into one giant clusterfuck of a paragraph.

The government of Venezuela is democratically elected and 71% of economic activity is controlled by private interests.

Does that sound like a socialist nation?


----------



## Dale Smith

otto105 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution is to race to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not a socialist nation. Your assertion that it is shows a ignorance bias on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dale, what in hell you conflating into one giant clusterfuck of a paragraph.
> 
> The government of Venezuela is democratically elected and 71% of economic activity is controlled by private interests.
> 
> Does that sound like a socialist nation?
Click to expand...

since 


It is since the private interests and the "gubermint" are one and the same...........even an idiot like you should be able to figure that one out.


----------



## otto105

Dale Smith said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution is to race to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not a socialist nation. Your assertion that it is shows a ignorance bias on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dale, what in hell you conflating into one giant clusterfuck of a paragraph.
> 
> The government of Venezuela is democratically elected and 71% of economic activity is controlled by private interests.
> 
> Does that sound like a socialist nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since
> 
> 
> It is since the private interests and the "gubermint" are one and the same...........even an idiot like you should be able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...



Way to reinforce the low standards of texas education Dale.


----------



## otto105

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your solution is to race to the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not a socialist nation. Your assertion that it is shows a ignorance bias on your part.
Click to expand...



Little patroit man, Venezuela is a petrochemical state. Government is democratically elected and 71% of economic activity is privately controlled.

Now take your badly skidded BVDs down to the laundry.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.



Except it doesn't. We aren't as rich as we were 40 years ago when I was growing up..  You got rid of the unions, the fair wage laws, put in right to work and at-will employment and people are poorer now, not richer. 

But keep comparing us to a third world country with a single commodity economy... that will work.


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????



Cocksucker Dale, you don't hold down a job.  Your coworkers run away when you start screaming, "9/11 was a hoax"!


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tremendous debt? You assholes want to talk about debt after passing the greatest debt funded tax heist in our history???
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...we do want to talk about debt. Because Barack Obama and the Dumbocrats added as much to the national debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history _combined_ did in 235 years. It was unspeakably irresponsible and reckless (all of the things we’ve come to expect from the left).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Must be using phaxnews "facts".
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...

No need to. The facts are indisputable, my fragile 'lil snowflake. The nation debt was $10 trillion when he took office. It was $20 trillion when he left. Took him only 8 years to match 235 years.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it doesn't. We aren't as rich as we were 40 years ago when I was growing up..
Click to expand...

Exactly! And we have more bat-shit crazy socialism/marxism/communism than we did when your parents were growing up.

There was no Obamacare back then, genius. There were no "environmental regulations" back then, genius. We didn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world back then, genius. You literally defeat your own position every time you post. It's amazing. This is like some idiot claiming that cancer isn't killing them and then pointing to how healthy they were 10 years before cancer. LMAO!!!


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet my solution ends in unimaginable wealth and prosperity while your “solution” (and I use that term loosely) ends in Venezuela. Socialism is a race to the bottom - stop projecting. Own it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it doesn't. We aren't as rich as we were 40 years ago when I was growing up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! And we have more bat-shit crazy socialism/marxism/communism than we did when your parents were growing up.
> 
> There was no Obamacare back then, genius. There were no "environmental regulations" back then, genius. We didn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world back then, genius. You literally defeat your own position every time you post. It's amazing. This is like some idiot claiming that cancer isn't killing them and then pointing to how healthy they were 10 years before cancer. LMAO!!!
Click to expand...

Only Joey could point to a prosperous time when there was exponentially less government and exponentially less progressivism as "proof" of how bad conservative policy is. Freaking _hilarious_.


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cocksucker Dale, you don't hold down a job.  Your coworkers run away when you start screaming, "9/11 was a hoax"!
Click to expand...



Joe Cocksucker, I do extremely well and that has to piss you off......that and the fact that I kick your ass in every exchange we have. Hope this helps!


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Otto, you believe that by confiscating the wages of others (such as myself) that you could create a socialist utopia? What if I decided that the "reward" for my labor wasn't worth the effort? Someone else would do it but I would still get the benefit of their labor. I mean, I COULD do the job.....I just don't wanna.......because the physical exertion required to accomplish the task for some fiat currency is simply too much ....should I be required to do it anyway and if I don't? Should someone else be required to subsidize me??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cocksucker Dale, you don't hold down a job.  Your coworkers run away when you start screaming, "9/11 was a hoax"!
Click to expand...

Well he's not the one calling for government handouts - you are. So draw your own conclusions. Logic (something you lefties are adverse to) would dictate that he's self-sustaining if he's against the government handouts you keep screaming for.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Exactly! And we have more bat-shit crazy socialism/marxism/communism than we did when your parents were growing up.



Um, guy, my parents grew up during the Great Depression and World War II.  We had a lot more Marxism back then before McCarthy got us all seeing commies under the bed.  

The reason why Marxism/Socialism is so popular with young people is they see what a shit sandwich capitalism has been for most of their parents, and they look out past college of a lifetime of slaving away for a big corporation to pay off their student debt, and they say fuck that, "Bernie 2020". 

Here's the thing, if Bernie had been the nominee in 2016, he'd have easily beat Trump. 



P@triot said:


> There was no Obamacare back then, genius. There were no "environmental regulations" back then, genius. We didn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world back then, genius.



Um, actually, back in the day, pre-Ronnie Ray-Gun (which is when I grew up) the rich paid their fair share.  We had awesome infrastructure, full employment and a vibrant middle class.  It still kind of sucked to not be white, and you had to put up with an occasional job program dressed up as a war. But certainly better than what we have now with regularly scheduled recessions to keep the working class in it's place.  



P@triot said:


> Only Joey could point to a prosperous time when there was exponentially less government and exponentially less progressivism as "proof" of how bad conservative policy is. Freaking _hilarious_.



Except there wasn't.  America's TRUE GOLDEN AGE was from 1945 to about 1972, where Republicans and Democrats agreed that we needed a strong government role, strong poverty alleviation programs, strong infrastructure and the fucking rich assholes paying their fair share.


----------



## JoeB131

Dale Smith said:


> Joe Cocksucker, I do extremely well and that has to piss you off......that and the fact that I kick your ass in every exchange we have. Hope this helps!



No, guy, the fact that you are taken care of in whatever crazy home they let you have half an hour of internet time a day is not "doing well". 

Someone as crazy as you are couldn't hold down a job. You'd be shreiking' "Those Kids at Sandy Hook are All Faking Being Dead" and your coworkers would be lined up outside HR trying to get rid of you.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Well he's not the one calling for government handouts - you are. So draw your own conclusions. Logic (something you lefties are adverse to) would dictate that he's self-sustaining if he's against the government handouts you keep screaming for.



I don't think he's self-sustaining. I suspect he's probably getting a "White People Welfare" program that people like you have no problem with.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing, if Bernie had been the nominee in 2016, he'd have easily beat Trump.


That’s _exactly_ what you said about Hitlery Clinton before she got her ass kicked.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That’s _exactly_ what you said about Hitlery Clinton before she got her ass kicked.



Again, she won by 3 million votes.  So,yeah, the Russians managed to game the system, and Trump will be run out of the White House for it. 

With luck, he'll take down the whole corrupt GOP with him.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Um, actually, back in the day, pre-Ronnie Ray-Gun (which is when I grew up) the rich paid their fair share.  We had awesome infrastructure, full employment and a vibrant middle class.


Clearly you misunderstood your parents stories, little boy. The reason Ronald Reagan made Jimmy Carter a one-term wonder is because the economy was an epic disaster under Carter and the Dumbocrats (as always). Unemployment was high. Inflation was off the charts. Interest rates were over 20%. And the American people couldn’t even get a gallon of gas because of the “energy crisis”.

You weren’t around back then (clearly) so you wouldn’t know. Which is why you should stay out of these discussions and focus on your studies over your Christmas break here. Junior High can be challenging if you don’t prepare properly.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Clearly you misunderstood your parents stories, little boy. The reason Ronald Reagan made Jimmy Carter a one-term wonder is because the economy was an epic disaster under Carter and the Dumbocrats (as always). Unemployment was high. Inflation was off the charts. Interest rates were over 20%. And the American people couldn’t even get a gallon of gas because of the “energy crisis”.



Jimmy Carter was disliked by his own party as much as he was Republicans.  

And sorry, Carter's economy wasn't nearly the epic disaster Bush's was... Or even the Recession we had at the begining of Reagan's term.  

So Reagan controlled inflation by crushing the middle class, and you thought that was a good thing.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s _exactly_ what you said about Hitlery Clinton before she got her ass kicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, she won by 3 million votes.  So,yeah, the Russians managed to game the system, and Trump will be run out of the White House for it.
> 
> With luck, he'll take down the whole corrupt GOP with him.
Click to expand...


How did they "game the system"?   Oh. BTW, the popular vote doesn't mean jack in this country.


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


You think a biased video is a reliable source? 
Lmao 
Way to punk yourself.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s _exactly_ what you said about Hitlery Clinton before she got her ass kicked.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, she won by 3 million votes
Click to expand...

Again...she *lost* 30 states. It was a bloodbath...


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> You think a biased video is a reliable source?


Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> Another success story from the Maine work requirements....
> 
> Welfare Time Limits Pushed Woman to Pull Herself Out of Poverty


MOre far right propaganda. You can never use valid sources for obvious reasons.


----------



## P@triot

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s _exactly_ what you said about Hitlery Clinton before she got her ass kicked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, she won by 3 million votes.  So,yeah, the Russians managed to game the system, and Trump will be run out of the White House for it.
> 
> With luck, he'll take down the whole corrupt GOP with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they "game the system"?   Oh. BTW, the popular vote doesn't mean jack in this country.
Click to expand...

I’ve explained that to him many, many times already but he’s young and _very_ slow.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another success story from the Maine work requirements....
> 
> Welfare Time Limits Pushed Woman to Pull Herself Out of Poverty
> 
> 
> 
> MOre far right propaganda. You can never use valid sources for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

You fear *facts* more than anyone I know.


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
Click to expand...

I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you. 
Way more.


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another success story from the Maine work requirements....
> 
> Welfare Time Limits Pushed Woman to Pull Herself Out of Poverty
> 
> 
> 
> MOre far right propaganda. You can never use valid sources for obvious reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fear *facts* more than anyone I know.
Click to expand...

Hilarious coming from someone who supports a pathological liar and wouldn’t know a fact if it came up and bit him on his fat ass.

Liar: I’ve signed the most bills of any president.
Fact: he’s dead last.  
Liar: I’m going to lose a lot of money with this tax bill. 
Fact: He stands to gain $6-11 million dollars..

I know you’re too much a coward to call out your pussygrabber on his OBVIOUS lies.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Reasonable said:


> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
Click to expand...


What on Earth are you talking about?


----------



## Reasonable

There’s going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth with the lowly 35% when the Dems take back the House next year. 
Real good shot for the Senate too. 

Fat ass is toxic in the country being the lowest rated president in history.
America is also not going to forget he campaigned for a child molester.


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
35% of the country ignores the chronic lying and unamerican policies.
65% of the country hates this lunatic with a passion that’s never been seen before in this country.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Reasonable said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
Click to expand...


Got a link to that?


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a link to that?
Click to expand...

I always laugh so hard how freaking stupid you cult members are and have no idea what he's doing. 
One of the first EO's he signed was giving Big Coal the right to pollute. 
This is about the 20th time I presented a link on this. 
Pretend it's not happening? 
Funny you're too lazy to find out for yourself. 


The bill quashes the Office of Surface Mining's Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste that officials finalized in December.

Trump signs bill undoing Obama coal mining rule


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Reasonable said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
> 35% of the country ignores the chronic lying and unamerican policies.
> 65% of the country hates this lunatic with a passion that’s never been seen before in this country.
Click to expand...


So, 100% of the country is anti-Trump?  That's rich.  Put down the bong kid.


----------



## Reasonable

That's only the tip of the iceberg of this fat idiot's antienvironmental policies. 
I guess Deplorables don't like clean water. 

*Trump signs executive order to roll back clean water rule*

*The rule gives protection to 60 percent of the US’s bodies of water*

Trump signs executive order to roll back clean water rule


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think a biased video is a reliable source?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
> 35% of the country ignores the chronic lying and unamerican policies.
> 65% of the country hates this lunatic with a passion that’s never been seen before in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, 100% of the country is anti-Trump?  That's rich.  Put down the bong kid.
Click to expand...

Moron can't read. I clearly said 65%. I see you're a pathologically liar like your fuhrer.


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy ass has no comment on his pussygrabber's anti environmental policies so he comes back with a lie. 
Not surprising.


----------



## Reasonable

Fire 3. 
Another example what this scoundrel is doing. 

President Trump's executive order will undo Obama's Clean Power Plan rule

I bet you dumbasses didn't know about this either. 
That's because Fox, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit won't tell you about it. 
They're state TV like North Korea.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Reasonable said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still “resisting” your own president and your own country? How’s that working out for you, snowflake?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
> 35% of the country ignores the chronic lying and unamerican policies.
> 65% of the country hates this lunatic with a passion that’s never been seen before in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, 100% of the country is anti-Trump?  That's rich.  Put down the bong kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron can't read. I clearly said 65%. I see you're a pathologically liar like your fuhrer.
Click to expand...


My fuhrer? Who might that be?


----------



## Reasonable

The  blueprint for prosperity includes poisoning our air and waterways.... in Trump's America


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168658 I’m not resisting my country. I’m resisting FOR my country.
> This POS giving free rein to polluters, denying science and the principles this country is founded is being strongly resisted. There are more of us than there are of you.
> Way more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What on Earth are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another member of the cult who doesn’t know T signed an EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute our rivers and streams... for STARTERS.
> 35% of the country ignores the chronic lying and unamerican policies.
> 65% of the country hates this lunatic with a passion that’s never been seen before in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, 100% of the country is anti-Trump?  That's rich.  Put down the bong kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron can't read. I clearly said 65%. I see you're a pathologically liar like your fuhrer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fuhrer? Who might that be?
Click to expand...

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Guess. 

No comment about your fuhrer's antienvironmental policies? 
Of course not. 
Must remain loyal to your master


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Reasonable said:


> Is the blueprint for prosperity include poisoning our air and waterways?
> Only in Trump's America



Jesus.. lighten up.  Nobody's poisoning shit.  Whimp.


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy ass asked for a link of something Trump did his  first month in office. How funny is that. 
Here's another one:

Trump caps off a long day by letting coal companies dump waste into streams.


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the blueprint for prosperity include poisoning our air and waterways?
> Only in Trump's America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus.. lighten up.  Nobody's poisoning shit.  Whimp.
Click to expand...

I just proved it you dumb shit. 
Funny how facts are like kryptonite  to you cult members


----------



## Reasonable

Here's something else I'm sure the trump whores don't know.
When fat ass was in Asia he attended an energy conference.
Each world leader got up and proudly explained what their country is doing to combat climate change and the progress they're making in alternative energy.
Then our dead beat president got up in stage and went into his " Coal is the wave of the future" lying routine.
Every world leader got out of their seats and walked out of the auditorium leaving the pathetic climate change denier alone.

One of 2017's top moments.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Reasonable said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the blueprint for prosperity include poisoning our air and waterways?
> Only in Trump's America
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy.
> Jesus.. lighten up.  Nobody's poisoning shit.  Whimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just proved it you dumb shit.
> Funny how facts are like kryptonite  to you cult members
Click to expand...


Christ... take a chill pill Nancy.


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy ass ran away. Filled with facts he needed to get a colonic to purge himself from what his fuhrer is really doing.


----------



## Reasonable

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the blueprint for prosperity include poisoning our air and waterways?
> Only in Trump's America
> 
> 
> 
> Nancy.
> Jesus.. lighten up.  Nobody's poisoning shit.  Whimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just proved it you dumb shit.
> Funny how facts are like kryptonite  to you cult members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ... take a chill pill Nancy.
Click to expand...

You didn't know any of the facts I just presented to you and your only response is " take a chill pill?"
Ha ha ha


----------



## Reasonable

Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Joey could point to a prosperous time when there was exponentially less government and exponentially less progressivism as "proof" of how bad conservative policy is. Freaking _hilarious_.
> 
> 
> 
> America's TRUE GOLDEN AGE was from 1945 to about 1972
Click to expand...

Again...before the left became radicalized. There was no Obamacare back then. No “environmental” regulations. No highest corporate tax rates in the _world_. No mandate requiring hospitals to provide care regardless of the ability to pay.

You continue to prove that the more left-wing policy we get, the more *failure* we get. But informed, educated, rational people already knew that.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> View attachment 168661 Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.


Yeah maaaaaaaan....Unreasonable is a modern day hippie, maaaaaan. Time to resist the man, maaaaaaaan.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.


Snowflake...”Global Warming” is a scam. Is has been proven to be a scam. The Dumbocrats must laugh their ass off every day at how easy you are to dupe.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



In Maine??? Huge state.
Talk about grabbing at straws.
How about Mississippi?
I guess you like my daughter who stated a $150mm business under Obama
Same as always, a few brains and an education aRe useful


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...”Global Warming” is a scam. Is has been proven to be a scam. The Dumbocrats must laugh their ass off every day at how easy you are to dupe.
Click to expand...


Nice foul mouth as usual.
Zero Ed obviously
And where did you get your climate science degree from again?
Oh, breitbart, I get it
What does NASA know compared to our patriot.
Looked up Sam Johnson yet?
Patriotism, the last refuge of of the scoundrel.?
Too much history for you I guess
Make America great again!!!
The USA Nazi wwi group name.
Still time to iron your brown shirt


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Except there wasn't.  America's TRUE GOLDEN AGE was from 1945 to about 1972, where Republicans and Democrats agreed that we needed a strong government role, strong poverty alleviation programs, strong infrastructure *and the fucking rich assholes paying their fair share*.


Man do we agree there. It’s time the wealthy pay their fair share. That’s why we should work together to *cut* their taxes by about 15% - 20%. They are paying way more than anyone else and that’s simply not fair. We should all pay 10% since we all benefit from the government services. It’s not fair that the top 10% of earners pay 53% of all federal taxes. What a horrible injustice. It’s time that parasites like you pay your fair share.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I guess you like my daughter who stated a $150*mm* business under Obama


Your daughter started a $150 millimeter business under Barack Insane Obama? 

I literally don’t even know what that means or how to respond to it.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except there wasn't.  America's TRUE GOLDEN AGE was from 1945 to about 1972, where Republicans and Democrats agreed that we needed a strong government role, strong poverty alleviation programs, strong infrastructure *and the fucking rich assholes paying their fair share*.
> 
> 
> 
> Man do we agree there. It’s time the wealthy pay their fair share. That’s why we should work together to *cut* their taxes by about 15% - 20%. They are paying way more than anyone else and that’s simply not fair. We should all pay 10% since we all benefit from the government services. It’s not fair that the top 10% of earners pay 53% of all federal taxes. What a horrible injustice. It’s time that parasites like you pay your fair share.
> 
> View attachment 168671
Click to expand...

Too much time sucking off our socialist VA SS Medicare benefits I see.
Reminds me of my millionaire dad "I love paying more taxes, it means I made even more last year"


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168661 Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 168662
Click to expand...

You forget "tell the dumbest white boy he is smarter than the smartest black guy and you can pick his pocket forever"
Why don't you stop the stupid mistakes, he never said that about dems


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you like my daughter who stated a $150*mm* business under Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Your daughter started a $150 millimeter business under Barack Insane Obama?
> 
> I literally don’t even know what that means or how to respond to it.
Click to expand...

One hundred and fifty Million dollars, something you obviously know nothing about.
Millimeters usually doesn't have a $ sign in front.
Glad to see you couldn't resist a little Obama insult.
Why don't you have a few balls and say what you really think. An uppity nixxer?
You never do say where is he and where are you mr old white fart.
Double wide sucking off benefits?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


We have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will; yet, the right wing will chose socialism on a, "nation-State" basis over faithful execution of our own laws.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Why don't you stop the stupid mistakes, he never said that about dems


Sweetie...*nobody* claimed that President Johnson said that. The meme didn’t even _imply_ it. There are no quotes in the meme. It’s just a fact of the left and LBJ really had that approach in everything he did - so he was the perfect person for the meme.

Like all left-wing ideologues, you have yourself in a tizzy. If you would calm down, breathe, and read clearly you wouldn’t make these embarrassing mistakes.


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.... stopping this president from ruining our environment and beautiful country by  letting his base... The fossil fuel swamp dwelling polluters... run wild... is a big part of the resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...”Global Warming” is a scam. Is has been proven to be a scam. The Dumbocrats must laugh their ass off every day at how easy you are to dupe.
Click to expand...

Proven where? At your propaganda sites? You can't find one climate scientist that will say that. Not one. 
And I'm a hippie because I don't want this president fouling our waters and air? 
You're insane.


----------



## Reasonable

The traitor can't even be honest about Trump's EO giving Big Coal the right to pollute or any of the other links I educated him on. 
At least Soggy Ass ran away quietly. 
Do you know what's patriotic? 
Working diligently to protect God's green earth. 
Just the opposite of what this horrendous president is doing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will; yet, the right wing will *chose socialism* on a, "nation-State" basis over faithful execution of our own laws.


This is what is known as “classic projection”.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> You can't find one climate scientist that will say that. Not one.


You’re right...I can only find 400 (in 2017 _alone_). 

Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say 'Global Warming' Is a Myth


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had *expanded* over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?


History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.


> On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”


Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you like my daughter who stated a $150*mm* business under Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Your daughter started a $150 millimeter business under Barack Insane Obama?
> 
> I literally don’t even know what that means or how to respond to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One hundred and fifty Million dollars, something you obviously know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Well “mm” means *millimeters*, my dear. Why are you angry with me when you made the mistake? Oh wait...I forgot...you’re a left-winger. That means never taking personal responsibility and always blaming someone else.

As far as your daughter...

A. Congratulations to both her and you. That is fantastic

B. It’s not all that surprising - there were more millionaires made during The Great Depression than any other period in U.S. history. Opportunity arises in the midst of chaos and misery. And nobody knows how to create economic chaos and misery like the Dumbocrats do.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> Do you know what's patriotic? Working diligently to protect God's green earth.


It is much more patriotic to protect *liberty*. And it’s not patriotic at all to spread propaganda (or buy into it).


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Reminds me of my millionaire dad "I love paying more taxes, it means I made even more last year"


Sweetie...I provided the indisputable data. The top 10% is paying 53% of all federal taxes. That’s outrageous. Parasites such as yourself should be allowed to mooch off of society. We should all have to pay 10%. That is the *true* definition of “fair”.

Instead, greedy, lazy progressives pay nothing while burdening others with 53%.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Too much time *sucking off* our socialist VA SS Medicare benefits I see.





ph3iron said:


> Why don't you have a few *balls* and say what you really think. An uppity nixxer?
> You never do say where is he and where are you mr old white *fart*.
> Double wide *sucking off* benefits?


Nice foul mouth as usual


----------



## danielpalos

Solving simple poverty, health care reform, and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Vote blue not red!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Solving simple poverty


Yeah..._great_ job “solving simple poverty”. Since you dillholes violated the U.S. Constitution and got government involved in your “War on Poverty”, poverty in the U.S. has grown ten fold.

Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Solving simple poverty, health care reform, and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Vote blue not red!


In other words... danielpalos isn’t willing to work for what he wants - so vote Dumbocrat so that he can get handouts and steal from others who do work.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> What does NASA know compared to our patriot.


This is really going to damage you fragile little psyche sweetie, but NASA completely agrees with me. Well...at least their objective satellites do!




 

Global Cooling: Arctic Ice Cap Grows 60 Percent In A Year [NASA PHOTO]


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?
> 
> 
> 
> History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had *expanded* over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time
Click to expand...

You lie like you breathe.


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?
> 
> 
> 
> History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time
Click to expand...

The non patriot uses a far right site. Of course not a scientist in sight.. 
why do you dopes love to embarrass yourself like that.


----------



## Reasonable

I love it when the trump whores try to talk science without using science sites.  They go back to their laughable right wing fossil fuel funded propaganda sites.


----------



## Reasonable

Science is like kryptonite to GW deniers.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..._great_ job “solving simple poverty”. Since you dillholes violated the U.S. Constitution and got government involved in your “War on Poverty”, poverty in the U.S. has grown ten fold.
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy!
Click to expand...

Only due to right wing obstruction.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty, health care reform, and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Vote blue not red!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... danielpalos isn’t willing to work for what he wants - so vote Dumbocrat so that he can get handouts and steal from others who do work.
Click to expand...

It is about equal protection of the law; only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?
> 
> 
> 
> History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had *expanded* over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie like you breathe.
Click to expand...

Snowflake...Al Gore's claim is on record. And the results are on record as well (the polar ice cap is not only NOT "completely melted" - it actually expanded a mind-boggling 900,000 sq miles).

You're such a pathological liar, that you actually lie about lying. Wow. I didn't lie and it's ALL on record for anyone to "fact check". You're just pissed off that you were so dumb, the Dumbocrats were able to easily dupe you. But don't take it on me - you're to blame for your own ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty, health care reform, and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Vote blue not red!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... danielpalos isn’t willing to work for what he wants - so vote Dumbocrat so that he can get handouts and steal from others who do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law; only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

There is no law that states you are entitled to what other people have just because you're don't want to hold a job. Sorry, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..._great_ job “solving simple poverty”. Since you dillholes violated the U.S. Constitution and got government involved in your “War on Poverty”, poverty in the U.S. has grown ten fold.
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only due to right wing obstruction.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha! Tell us, snowflake, how the right has "obstructed" the programs you losers created. Nobody stopped welfare, or Social Security, or Medicaid, or Medicare, or food stamps, etc.

This is amazing! When faced to admit that poverty has grown exponentially since the left started their idiotic "War on Poverty", danielpalos just arbitrarily attempts to blame it on the right. 

They are YOUR side's programs - and they have *failed* miserably. Left-wing policy always does.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty, health care reform, and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> Vote blue not red!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... danielpalos isn’t willing to work for what he wants - so vote Dumbocrat so that he can get handouts and steal from others who do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law; only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no law that states you are entitled to what other people have just because you're don't want to hold a job. Sorry, snowflake.
Click to expand...

the law is employment at will, not "wage slavery" for the benefit of capitalists.  That does not help labor regarding wages.  It is worse than the H1 visa system for keeping wages low.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..._great_ job “solving simple poverty”. Since you dillholes violated the U.S. Constitution and got government involved in your “War on Poverty”, poverty in the U.S. has grown ten fold.
> 
> Nothing ends in failure like left-wing policy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only due to right wing obstruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahahaha! Tell us, snowflake, how the right has "obstructed" the programs you losers created. Nobody stopped welfare, or Social Security, or Medicaid, or Medicare, or food stamps, etc.
> 
> This is amazing! When faced to admit that poverty has grown exponentially since the left started their idiotic "War on Poverty", danielpalos just arbitrarily attempts to blame it on the right.
> 
> They are YOUR side's programs - and they have *failed* miserably. Left-wing policy always does.
Click to expand...

Healthcare reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal instead of any better solutions at lower cost.

And, right wing solutions always seem to involve, socialism on a national basis.

our right wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, are examples.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the law is employment at will, not "wage slavery" for the benefit of capitalists.


Corporations aren’t breaking *any* laws with their wages, either. It’s not the fault of corporations that you bring no value to the table.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Healthcare reform; the right wing has nothing but repeal instead of any better solutions at lower cost.


Medicare and Medicaid were *never* “repealed”, snowflake. And Obamacare _still_ hasn’t been repealed.

You just can’t accept that your ideology is failed ideology even when the facts are indisputable.


----------



## danielpalos

it can't be a failed ideology, if the right wing couldn't repeal it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it can't be a failed ideology, if the right wing couldn't repeal it.


The ability to get the votes to repeal something is no indication of the failure of a policy. The results of the policy are the indicator of the failure or success. And everything you people have done has been catastrophic failure.

Poverty has skyrocketed since the left-wing "War on Poverty". Healthcare has skyrocketed since Obamacare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't be a failed ideology, if the right wing couldn't repeal it.
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to get the votes to repeal something is no indication of the failure of a policy. The results of the policy are the indicator of the failure or success. And everything you people have done has been catastrophic failure.
> 
> Poverty has skyrocketed since the left-wing "War on Poverty". Healthcare has skyrocketed since Obamacare.
Click to expand...

And, the right wing was willing to have nothing but repeal for healthcare and helping the rich get richer, through lower taxes?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> And, the right wing was willing to have nothing but repeal for healthcare


That's because the U.S. Constitution dictates that the government is not allowed to do anything with healthcare. Unlike you left-wing thugs, conservatives actually respect and obey the law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the right wing was willing to have nothing but repeal for healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the U.S. Constitution dictates that the government is not allowed to do anything with healthcare. Unlike you left-wing thugs, conservatives actually respect and obey the law.
Click to expand...

Unlike corporate welfare, which even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to Individuals.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did you get your climate science degree from again?
> 
> 
> 
> History. I received my “climate science degree” from history. Not one of the left’s outrageous “Global Warming” claims have ever come to fruition. Not one.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had *expanded* over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Global warming predictions proven wrong 97.4% of the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie like you breathe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake...Al Gore's claim is on record. And the results are on record as well (the polar ice cap is not only NOT "completely melted" - it actually expanded a mind-boggling 900,000 sq miles).
> 
> You're such a pathological liar, that you actually lie about lying. Wow. I didn't lie and it's ALL on record for anyone to "fact check". You're just pissed off that you were so dumb, the Dumbocrats were able to easily dupe you. But don't take it on me - you're to blame for your own ignorance.
Click to expand...


Apart from the bile, you never did say why NASA is wrong or where you got your climate sciencdegree
Dumbocrats? Snowflake?
Nice foul mouth.
Is this what you are reduced too?
2nd grade insults?
Which polar icecap?
The other one is melting like crazy.
Is this the limit of your intelligence.?
I just take what 90% of the science communities say.
Not an old white fart sucking off his socialist benefits


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Which polar icecap?


There is only one...


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> you never did say why NASA is wrong or where you got your climate sciencdegree


I told you half a dozens times already...I got my “Climate Sceince Degree” from history (which has proven you left-wing fascists wrong hundreds and hundreds of times).


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

​


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> you never did say why NASA is wrong or where you got your climate sciencdegree
> 
> 
> 
> I told you half a dozens times already...I got my “Climate Sceince Degree” from history (which has proven you left-wing fascists wrong hundreds and hundreds of times).
Click to expand...

you  are a regular "Einstein"


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ​


Weird how unemployment was over 10% under Barack Insane Obama in 2009 and is at 4% under *President Trump*. But you never were one for facts, Tyrone.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how unemployment was over 10% under Barack Insane Obama in 2009 and is at 4% under *President Trump*. But you never were one for facts, Tyrone.
Click to expand...

What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

danielpalos said:


> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?


Let me use a Football analogy . Obama came in at QB in the Fourth Quarter with the team down 4 scores .  He not only threw 4 TD s he converted 3 consecutive onside kicks .......Trump came in with a comfortable lead and with the  game officials in his back pocket ..


----------



## Thinker101

TyroneSlothrop said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me use a Football analogy . Obama came in at QB in the Fourth Quarter with the team down 4 scores .  He not only threw 4 TD s he converted 3 consecutive onside kicks .......Trump came in with a comfortable lead and with the  game officials in his back pocket ..
Click to expand...


Trump cam in with a comfortable lead and with game officials in his back pocket???  You sorry delusional child, you seem to be getting Trump confused with Hillary.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me use a Football analogy . Obama came in at QB in the Fourth Quarter with the team down 4 scores .  He not only threw 4 TD s he converted 3 consecutive onside kicks .......Trump came in with a comfortable lead and with the  game officials in his back pocket ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump cam in with a comfortable lead and with game officials in his back pocket???  You sorry delusional child, you seem to be getting Trump confused with Hillary.
Click to expand...

What were the actual numbers for Mr. Trump, right wingers?


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me use a Football analogy . Obama came in at QB in the Fourth Quarter with the team down 4 scores .  He not only threw 4 TD s he converted 3 consecutive onside kicks .......Trump came in with a comfortable lead and with the  game officials in his back pocket ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump cam in with a comfortable lead and with game officials in his back pocket???  You sorry delusional child, you seem to be getting Trump confused with Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were the actual numbers for Mr. Trump, right wingers?
Click to expand...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


----------



## danielpalos

What Kind Of 'Jobs President' Has Obama Been — In 8 Charts

The unemployment trend was lower, not higher.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?


It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and drastically went up. It started around 5% for *President Trump* and decreased.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What Kind Of 'Jobs President' Has Obama Been — In 8 Charts
> 
> The unemployment trend was lower, not higher.


It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats and exploded to over 10% *after* they passed their idiotic “stimulus package”.

Thankfully the American people stepped in at the 2010 midterms and handed the nation over to Republicans. And over night the recovery “magically” started.


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Let me use a Football analogy


Football is not a proper noun, nitwit. Therefore, it should not be capitalized unless it is at the beginning of a sentence.

You’re as ignorant about American grammar as you are American history. Barack Insane Obama started the game. It was 0-0 obviously. He fumbled 8 times and threw 5 int’s (not surprising when you see how that limp-wrist throws a baseball).

Thankfully - the head coach (the American people) turned the reigns over to Republicans in the 2010 midterms and instantly the team started the comeback.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and drastically went up. It started around 5% for *President Trump* and decreased.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Kind Of 'Jobs President' Has Obama Been — In 8 Charts
> 
> The unemployment trend was lower, not higher.
> 
> 
> 
> It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats and exploded to over 10% *after* they passed their idiotic “stimulus package”.
> 
> Thankfully the American people stepped in at the 2010 midterms and handed the nation over to Republicans. And over night the recovery “magically” started.
Click to expand...

I guess, according to right wing fantasy, trailing a Great Recession, had nothing to do with it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and drastically went up. It started around 5% for *President Trump* and decreased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true progressive who can’t dispute the *facts*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Kind Of 'Jobs President' Has Obama Been — In 8 Charts
> 
> The unemployment trend was lower, not higher.
> 
> 
> 
> It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats and exploded to over 10% *after* they passed their idiotic “stimulus package”.
> 
> Thankfully the American people stepped in at the 2010 midterms and handed the nation over to Republicans. And over night the recovery “magically” started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess, according to right wing fantasy, trailing a Great Recession, had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

The did “trail” the recession chief - they started it. There was no recession until Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats were in charge.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did it start at under Obama and what did it start at, under Trump?
> 
> 
> 
> It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and drastically went up. It started around 5% for *President Trump* and decreased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like a true progressive who can’t dispute the *facts*.
Click to expand...

special pleading is more like it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Kind Of 'Jobs President' Has Obama Been — In 8 Charts
> 
> The unemployment trend was lower, not higher.
> 
> 
> 
> It started at 7% under Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats and exploded to over 10% *after* they passed their idiotic “stimulus package”.
> 
> Thankfully the American people stepped in at the 2010 midterms and handed the nation over to Republicans. And over night the recovery “magically” started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess, according to right wing fantasy, trailing a Great Recession, had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The did “trail” the recession chief - they started it. There was no recession until Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats were in charge.
Click to expand...

The trend was up for Obama and was already trending down for Trump.


----------



## P@triot

The winning continues...as does the unimaginable lunacy of the Dumbocrats. If Barack Insane Obama had achieved any of this - the left would be crowing from the mountain tops. But they inexplicably complain about President Trump creating more jobs, higher wages, and increased prosperity.

Most workers will see pay hike in February under new tax law


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> The winning continues...as does the unimaginable lunacy of the Dumbocrats. If Barack Insane Obama had achieved any of this - the left would be crowing from the mountain tops. But they inexplicably complain about President Trump creating more jobs, higher wages, and increased prosperity.
> 
> Most workers will see pay hike in February under new tax law


it is being financed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning continues...as does the unimaginable lunacy of the Dumbocrats. If Barack Insane Obama had achieved any of this - the left would be crowing from the mountain tops. But they inexplicably complain about President Trump creating more jobs, higher wages, and increased prosperity.
> 
> Most workers will see pay hike in February under new tax law
> 
> 
> 
> it is being financed.
Click to expand...

By proven economic policy!


----------



## P@triot

*President Trump* has done more for the African-American community in less than 1 year than the Democrats have done in 150 years. But then again - the Democrats are fiercely racist. It's not like they've been trying to advance the African-American community.

Q&A: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs


----------



## BrokeLoser

P@triot said:


> *President Trump* has done more for the African-American community in less than 1 year than the Democrats have done in 150 years. But then again - the Democrats are fiercely racist. It's not like they've been trying to advance the African-American community.
> 
> Q&A: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs



Are you telling us that Donald Trump has done more for Blacks in one year than a Black President did for Blacks in eight years?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning continues...as does the unimaginable lunacy of the Dumbocrats. If Barack Insane Obama had achieved any of this - the left would be crowing from the mountain tops. But they inexplicably complain about President Trump creating more jobs, higher wages, and increased prosperity.
> 
> Most workers will see pay hike in February under new tax law
> 
> 
> 
> it is being financed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By proven economic policy!
Click to expand...

proven to not increase revenues like tax hikes would.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> *President Trump* has done more for the African-American community in less than 1 year than the Democrats have done in 150 years. But then again - the Democrats are fiercely racist. It's not like they've been trying to advance the African-American community.
> 
> Q&A: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs


We know what happened to those, "shovel ready jobs"; the right wing happened to them.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President Trump* has done more for the African-American community in less than 1 year than the Democrats have done in 150 years. But then again - the Democrats are fiercely racist. It's not like they've been trying to advance the African-American community.
> 
> Q&A: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs
> 
> 
> 
> We know what happened to those, "shovel ready jobs"; the right wing happened to them.
Click to expand...

Uh..._what_? Even Barack Insane Obama’s himself declared “those ‘shovel-ready’ jobs weren’t as shovel-ready as I thought”. The right had *nothing* to do with it. That was just failed left-wing policy failing as always.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning continues...as does the unimaginable lunacy of the Dumbocrats. If Barack Insane Obama had achieved any of this - the left would be crowing from the mountain tops. But they inexplicably complain about President Trump creating more jobs, higher wages, and increased prosperity.
> 
> Most workers will see pay hike in February under new tax law
> 
> 
> 
> it is being financed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By proven economic policy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proven to not increase revenues like tax hikes would.
Click to expand...

The government doesn’t need “increased revenue”. They need to cut spending. We don’t have an income problem - never have. We have a spending problem. Indisputable fact.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President Trump* has done more for the African-American community in less than 1 year than the Democrats have done in 150 years. But then again - the Democrats are fiercely racist. It's not like they've been trying to advance the African-American community.
> 
> Q&A: Black Activist Says Trump Policies, Unlike Obama’s, Create Jobs
> 
> 
> 
> We know what happened to those, "shovel ready jobs"; the right wing happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh..._what_? Even Barack Insane Obama’s himself declared “those ‘shovel-ready’ jobs weren’t as shovel-ready as I thought”. The right had *nothing* to do with it. That was just failed left-wing policy failing as always.
Click to expand...

Nothing but repeal, from the right legislative wing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning continues...as does the unimaginable lunacy of the Dumbocrats. If Barack Insane Obama had achieved any of this - the left would be crowing from the mountain tops. But they inexplicably complain about President Trump creating more jobs, higher wages, and increased prosperity.
> 
> Most workers will see pay hike in February under new tax law
> 
> 
> 
> it is being financed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By proven economic policy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proven to not increase revenues like tax hikes would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government doesn’t need “increased revenue”. They need to cut spending. We don’t have an income problem - never have. We have a spending problem. Indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

all political talk and no political action from the right wing.  end the drug war.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but repeal, from the right legislative wing.


That’s what constitutional government _is_ - repealing illegal/unconstitutional oppressive nonsense from the left. It’s remarkable how liberty shakes you to your core.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> all political talk and no political action from the right wing.  end the drug war.


Liberty and the U.S. Constitution mandates “no political action”. Deal with it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but repeal, from the right legislative wing.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what constitutional government _is_ - repealing illegal/unconstitutional oppressive nonsense from the left. It’s remarkable how liberty shakes you to your core.
Click to expand...

y'all Only have a problem when it promotes the general Welfare not the general Badfare.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but repeal, from the right legislative wing.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what constitutional government _is_ - repealing illegal/unconstitutional oppressive nonsense from the left. It’s remarkable how liberty shakes you to your core.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all Only have a problem when it promotes the general Welfare not the general Badfare.
Click to expand...

Actually, we have a problem when it “promotes” _anything_ as promotion is *not* the responsibility of government. It’s truly a shame that you don’t even know why your own government exists. A product of the entitled and selfish generation.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but repeal, from the right legislative wing.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what constitutional government _is_ - repealing illegal/unconstitutional oppressive nonsense from the left. It’s remarkable how liberty shakes you to your core.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all Only have a problem when it promotes the general Welfare not the general Badfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we have a problem when it “promotes” _anything_ as promotion is *not* the responsibility of government. It’s truly a shame that you don’t even know why your own government exists. A product of the entitled and selfish generation.
Click to expand...

projecting much, right winger (like usual)?



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> projecting much, right winger (like usual)?
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

The preamble is *not* a “power”, you dumb dimwit.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much, right winger (like usual)?
> 
> 
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The preamble is *not* a “power”, you dumb dimwit.
Click to expand...

It does provide context.  You will notice how it doesn't say, promote the common defense.


----------



## RealDave

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?





TANF always were temporary and had a requirement to look for work & always had a strong record of people leaving the program through employment.

No, they did not decrease food stamp recipients by 80%.  The number of able bodied people without children was decreased by 80%.  Food stamps was always mostly about children.


----------



## P@triot

This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...


Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.


----------



## emilynghiem

P@triot said:


> And here is the blueprint functioning flawlessly yet again. The official liberal (false) narrative will attempt to convince you that this doesn't happen. Yet all across America, this happens every single day. Just imagine if we could restore Constitutional governmet and restore the over $1 trillion in waste to the American people...
> 
> Kentucky Businessman Buys Out Closing Kmart — and Donates Everything to Charity


Dear P@triot
Thanks for your post about the self sufficient school program that supports itself with campus jobs. I also promote this campus model as the ideal for govt reform, including prisons health care and VA that all need this innovation.

By applying that model to the business man who bought out a Kmart, why not turn these sites into sustainable centers for training in management, and creating jobs for Vets and other locals? Instead of Walmarts closing down or post offices running in the red, these can be bought out and taken over by Vets . If these sites are run like campus jobs,  workers and managers can earn their education by learning how to operate them effectively on a sustainable basis. Just bring in experienced CEO to mentor and train people, who then graduate and rotate in new classes of interns for on the job training.

Using this model, we can reform the VA, the prisons and immigration system , and create enough jobs and training to take back production and manufacturing , as well as train enough service providers, doctors and nurses to meet demands for health care.

Every district will need its own local facilities and programs to cover the population.  We need to start planning and investing resources now. Thanks for citing an existing model, so this can be promoted and replicated


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.
Click to expand...

And that idiotic statement right there is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or _anything_).

Experts reveal which president is more responsible for booming economy, long-term growth potential


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that idiotic statement right there is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or _anything_).
> 
> Experts reveal which president is more responsible for booming economy, long-term growth potential
Click to expand...

Just propaganda for political purposes.  Just like WikiLeaks.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that idiotic statement right there is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or _anything_).
> 
> Experts reveal which president is more responsible for booming economy, long-term growth potential
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just propaganda for political purposes.  Just like WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...

What you desperately call “propaganda” other people recognize as *reality*. Conservative economic policy is flawless. It results in prosperity _every_ time. And progressive policy results in poverty in _every_ time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that idiotic statement right there is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or _anything_).
> 
> Experts reveal which president is more responsible for booming economy, long-term growth potential
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just propaganda for political purposes.
Click to expand...

Is Apple involved in the “propaganda” game too, snowflake?


> “Apple’s direct contribution to the US economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years, not including Apple’s ongoing tax payments, the tax revenues generated from employees’ wages and the sale of Apple products,” the company said in a press release. Besides being good PR, Apple’s announcement signifies major companies’ newfound confidence in the U.S. economy.



Apple Vows $350 Billion Investment in US Economy – Here’s What It Means for You


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that idiotic statement right there is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or _anything_).
> 
> Experts reveal which president is more responsible for booming economy, long-term growth potential
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just propaganda for political purposes.  Just like WikiLeaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you desperately call “propaganda” other people recognize as *reality*. Conservative economic policy is flawless. It results in prosperity _every_ time. And progressive policy results in poverty in _every_ time.
Click to expand...

speculative exuberance, nothing more.  You guy has done nothing but get a tax break.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video is pure gold. Indisputable proof that the left doesn’t understand basic economics and peddles in pure propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda.  One year bonus means nothing, next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that idiotic statement right there is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or _anything_).
> 
> Experts reveal which president is more responsible for booming economy, long-term growth potential
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just propaganda for political purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Apple involved in the “propaganda” game too, snowflake?
> 
> 
> 
> “Apple’s direct contribution to the US economy will be more than $350 billion over the next five years, not including Apple’s ongoing tax payments, the tax revenues generated from employees’ wages and the sale of Apple products,” the company said in a press release. Besides being good PR, Apple’s announcement signifies major companies’ newfound confidence in the U.S. economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apple Vows $350 Billion Investment in US Economy – Here’s What It Means for You
Click to expand...

Private firms invest anyway.  What the tax break means, is we have more debt.  One point five trillion, not merely, three hundred fifty billion.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What the tax break means, is we have more debt.  One point five trillion, not merely, three hundred fifty billion.


Tax breaks _only_ result in additional debt if government fails to budget properly.

For starters, the increased income by these millions of Americans will result in increased taxes for them to pay.

Secondly, if we cut spending as we should, we’ll have a surplus after the tax breaks. No more debt.

This is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> speculative exuberance, nothing more.  You guy has done nothing but get a tax break.


That “speculative exuberance” just resulted in the second most successful economy under a president for a year in U.S. _history_.

Conservative policy ends in prosperity. Progressive policy ends in poverty.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You guy has done nothing but get a tax break.


That’s not true at all chief - he’s eliminated a ton of Barack Insane Obama’s unconstitutional regulations, approved the Keystone Pipeline and other energy endeavors, and renegotiated trade agreements to favor the U.S.

Like all successful businessmen, he understood how to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity. It was a comprehensive plan and it worked flawlessly (along with everything Republicans have done for the past 6 years at state and local levels).

Unemployment Claims Drop to Lowest Number in 45 Years


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the tax break means, is we have more debt.  One point five trillion, not merely, three hundred fifty billion.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks _only_ result in additional debt if government fails to budget properly.
> 
> For starters, the increased income by these millions of Americans will result in increased taxes for them to pay.
> 
> Secondly, if we cut spending as we should, we’ll have a surplus after the tax breaks. No more debt.
> 
> This is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps more people make more money to pay more taxes.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guy has done nothing but get a tax break.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not true at all chief - he’s eliminated a ton of Barack Insane Obama’s unconstitutional regulations, approved the Keystone Pipeline and other energy endeavors, and renegotiated trade agreements to favor the U.S.
> 
> Like all successful businessmen, he understood how to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity. It was a comprehensive plan and it worked flawlessly (along with everything Republicans have done for the past 6 years at state and local levels).
> 
> Unemployment Claims Drop to Lowest Number in 45 Years
Click to expand...

In other words, the right wing has no problem "trashing our environment" as long as they get a bonus.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps more people make more money to pay more taxes.


A *forced* $15 minimum wage puts businesses out of business. That results in no jobs, thus no income, thus nothing to tax. We just proved that over the last year or so of Obama’s final year when idiot progressive cities tried that and ended up collapsing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps more people make more money to pay more taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> A *forced* $15 minimum wage puts businesses out of business. That results in no jobs, thus no income, thus nothing to tax. We just proved that over the last year or so of Obama’s final year when idiot progressive cities tried that and ended up collapsing.
Click to expand...

Who cares if we lose low wage jobs. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Who cares if we lose low wage jobs. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


Well...that's _exactly_ why we care. Because people who lose low wage jobs have to go on "social services". Thank you for supporting the case against your own bizarre position.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if we lose low wage jobs. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that's _exactly_ why we care. Because people who lose low wage jobs have to go on "social services". Thank you for supporting the case against your own bizarre position.
Click to expand...

Fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if we lose low wage jobs. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that's _exactly_ why we care. Because people who lose low wage jobs have to go on "social services". Thank you for supporting the case against your own bizarre position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!
Click to expand...

Only Dumbocrats support *failed* left-wing policy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if we lose low wage jobs. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...that's _exactly_ why we care. Because people who lose low wage jobs have to go on "social services". Thank you for supporting the case against your own bizarre position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Dumbocrats support *failed* left-wing policy.
Click to expand...

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


And not being on “social services” costs the American taxpayers around $0.00 per hour. It’s an obvious choice to anyone who isn’t a left-wing parasite.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> And not being on “social services” costs the American taxpayers around $0.00 per hour. It’s an obvious choice to anyone who isn’t a left-wing parasite.
Click to expand...

only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

Why is there Any homelessness at all, in alleged, right to work States?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why is there Any homelessness at all, in alleged, right to work States?


Because Dumbocrats would rather stick needles filled with heroin into their arms than hold a job. And _every_ state has its share of Dumbocrats.

The better question is - why are there any homelessness in Dumbocrat cities, counties, and states? You guys were supposedly waging a “war on poverty”. Looks like you’re getting your asses kicked in that war.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there Any homelessness at all, in alleged, right to work States?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Dumbocrats would rather stick needles filled with heroin into their arms than hold a job. And _every_ state has its share of Dumbocrats.
> 
> The better question is - why are there any homelessness in Dumbocrat cities, counties, and states? You guys were supposedly waging a “war on poverty”. Looks like you’re getting your asses kicked in that war.
Click to expand...

only the right wing alleges any right to work in any given State.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there Any homelessness at all, in alleged, right to work States?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Dumbocrats would rather stick needles filled with heroin into their arms than hold a job. And _every_ state has its share of Dumbocrats.
> 
> The better question is - why are there any homelessness in Dumbocrat cities, counties, and states? You guys were supposedly waging a “war on poverty”. Looks like you’re getting your asses kicked in that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing alleges any right to work in any given State.
Click to expand...

This is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics. You weren’t even able to address a single, simple question.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there Any homelessness at all, in alleged, right to work States?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Dumbocrats would rather stick needles filled with heroin into their arms than hold a job. And _every_ state has its share of Dumbocrats.
> 
> The better question is - why are there any homelessness in Dumbocrat cities, counties, and states? You guys were supposedly waging a “war on poverty”. Looks like you’re getting your asses kicked in that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing alleges any right to work in any given State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics. You weren’t even able to address a single, simple question.
Click to expand...

we take the right wing even less seriously, when they insist on alleged, right to work States and still indulge poverty.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we take the right wing even less seriously, when they insist on alleged, right to work States and still indulge poverty.


That’s what liberty is all about - indulging people in their personal choices. And make no mistake, poverty _is_ a personal choice.

There isn’t a single person in the U.S. who chooses not to live in poverty that ends up in poverty. They might be poor - but not in poverty. Even working minimum wage will keep one out of poverty.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. It works every time without fail.


> Disney will give a $1,000 bonus to 125,000 full- and part-time employees. The company will also spend $50 million to launch a higher education initiative that assists hourly employees with tuition.


More money in the pocket of Americans and more opportunities. The polar opposite of what left-wing policy delivers.

Disney to give $1,000 bonuses to 125,000 employees and create a higher education program


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we take the right wing even less seriously, when they insist on alleged, right to work States and still indulge poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> Even working minimum wage will keep one out of poverty.
Click to expand...


Hahaha, a lot of jobs hire part time on purpose, so they don't have to pay out benefits, furthermore on a part time job they will have trouble paying the bills, especially in the more expensive regions in parts of  California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey etc.

You try to pay for healthcare, a car, an apartment etc. all on even a minimum wage job of 60 hours a week, much less a 30 hour a week job as many part timers are getting now-a-days.'

You're out of your mind, typical British selfish idiot, you're no patriot, you'd let your own Americans die of poverty, so long as your okay, that's not patriotism, but rather deplorable.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> You're out of your mind, typical British selfish idiot, you're no patriot, you'd let your own Americans die of poverty, so long as your okay, that's not patriotism, but rather deplorable.


Yawn. Being the fascist idiot that you are, you would place your fellow countrymen in ovens or gas them in “showers” than acknowledge your idiotic socialism ended in the inability to feed the masses - much less provide healthcare for them.

You embody the “dumb polack” stereotype.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of your mind, typical British selfish idiot, you're no patriot, you'd let your own Americans die of poverty, so long as your okay, that's not patriotism, but rather deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn. Being the fascist idiot that you are, you would place your fellow countrymen in ovens or gas them in “showers” than acknowledge your idiotic socialism ended in the inability to feed the masses - much less provide healthcare for them.
> 
> You embody the “dumb polack” stereotype.
Click to expand...


Fascism has a great economic track record.

I never once said I support placing anyone in ovens, or gas showers, it's probably unlikely those even existed for the masses, anyways.

Keep in mind the Nazis actually fed Jews on a low calorie diet, they supplied them food until they died, the big question becomes why do you feed people you intend on killing?

I certainly don't deny that millions of people died from malnutrition, and disease, but I'm quite skeptical of the gas chamber / oven thing being used for the masses of Jews.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Fascism has a great economic track record.


So great that not one single society has ever survived it.


SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Keep in mind the Nazis actually fed Jews on a low calorie diet, they supplied them food until they died, the big question becomes *why do you feed people you intend on killing*?


To perform the forced labor prior to execution. Man...that question is the quintessential dumb polack question.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism has a great economic track record.
> 
> 
> 
> So great that not one single society has ever survived it.
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the Nazis actually fed Jews on a low calorie diet, they supplied them food until they died, the big question becomes *why do you feed people you intend on killing*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To perform the forced labor prior to execution. Man...that question is the quintessential dumb polack question.
Click to expand...


So, if you can starve people to death, why do you use gas chambers, and ovens?

Yeah, I didn't think it made much sense, either.

But, you British savages, you just can't think at all, I've not met a lower order of White life than a Brit.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> So, if you can starve people to death, why do you use gas chambers, and ovens?


Uh...because it’s faster and more efficient (starvation takes quite a while). Once again you do nothing to end the dumb polack stereotype.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we take the right wing even less seriously, when they insist on alleged, right to work States and still indulge poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what liberty is all about - indulging people in their personal choices. And make no mistake, poverty _is_ a personal choice.
> 
> There isn’t a single person in the U.S. who chooses not to live in poverty that ends up in poverty. They might be poor - but not in poverty. Even working minimum wage will keep one out of poverty.
Click to expand...

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Not a Personal choice.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. It works every time without fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Disney will give a $1,000 bonus to 125,000 full- and part-time employees. The company will also spend $50 million to launch a higher education initiative that assists hourly employees with tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> More money in the pocket of Americans and more opportunities. The polar opposite of what left-wing policy delivers.
> 
> Disney to give $1,000 bonuses to 125,000 employees and create a higher education program
Click to expand...

While our infrastructure erodes?


----------



## P@triot

So. Much. Winning. We have the blueprint for prosperity...


> Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods announced in a blog post Monday that his company will invest $50 billion in the U.S. over the next five years.
> 
> Woods credited both recent regulatory reform and the corporate tax rate cut that President Donald Trump signed into law last month for the company’s expansion plans. The tax rate was cut from 35% to 21%.
> 
> “These are all possible because of the resource base developed by our industry along with sound tax and regulatory policies that create a pro-growth business climate here in the U.S.,” Woods wrote.


It’s such a shame that so many had to suffer for so long under the *failed* policies of the left. None of this is rocket science. Whoever creates the best climate for businesses will get the jobs and tax revenues that come with it.

Exxon Mobil CEO announces $50 billion investment in US production and jobs, credits tax cuts


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we take the right wing even less seriously, when they insist on alleged, right to work States and still indulge poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what liberty is all about - indulging people in their personal choices. And make no mistake, poverty _is_ a personal choice.
> 
> There isn’t a single person in the U.S. who chooses not to live in poverty that ends up in poverty. They might be poor - but not in poverty. Even working minimum wage will keep one out of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Not a Personal choice.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Just _choose_ to out perform your competition and you will *never* be unemployed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. It works every time without fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Disney will give a $1,000 bonus to 125,000 full- and part-time employees. The company will also spend $50 million to launch a higher education initiative that assists hourly employees with tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> More money in the pocket of Americans and more opportunities. The polar opposite of what left-wing policy delivers.
> 
> Disney to give $1,000 bonuses to 125,000 employees and create a higher education program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While our infrastructure erodes?
Click to expand...

Better our “infrastructure” erodes than our families. Under Obama and the Dumbocrats, poverty was rampant. Under *President Trump* and the Republicans, prosperity is rampant.


----------



## P@triot

“*Dems downplay bonuses and investment in the USA*”

Democrats panic over avalanche of good economic news


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...


> Why does it matter? Because, as The New York Times noted in a rare piece crediting President Trump’s tax breaks and deregulatory policies with the upturn in business optimism: “Investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades … bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly.”
> 
> Rising capital spending means increased productivity; with new machines and more efficient plants, workers are able to make more goods. Economists have long cited the lackluster productivity growth of recent years for sluggish wage gains.


*President Trump* delivering on _every_ promise - just as he said he would.

Democrats panic over avalanche of good economic news


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> So. Much. Winning. We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods announced in a blog post Monday that his company will invest $50 billion in the U.S. over the next five years.
> 
> Woods credited both recent regulatory reform and the corporate tax rate cut that President Donald Trump signed into law last month for the company’s expansion plans. The tax rate was cut from 35% to 21%.
> 
> “These are all possible because of the resource base developed by our industry along with sound tax and regulatory policies that create a pro-growth business climate here in the U.S.,” Woods wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s such a shame that so many had to suffer for so long under the *failed* policies of the left. None of this is rocket science. Whoever creates the best climate for businesses will get the jobs and tax revenues that come with it.
> 
> Exxon Mobil CEO announces $50 billion investment in US production and jobs, credits tax cuts
Click to expand...

All we needed to do was enact a tariff on their expatriated cash reserves.  treat them like solar.


----------



## P@triot

Sound, proven conservative policy doing what it always does - creating unimaginable prosperity...


> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Apple is planning to build a new corporate campus and hire 20,000 U.S. workers in an expansion *driven in part by a tax cut* that will enable the iPhone maker to bring an estimated $245 billion back to its home country.
> 
> The pledge announced Wednesday comes less than a month after Congress approved a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code championed by President Donald Trump that will increase corporate profits.
> 
> Besides dramatically lowering the standard corporate tax rate, the reforms offer a one-time break on cash held overseas.
> 
> Apple plans to take advantage of that provision to *bring back most of its roughly $252 billion in offshore cash*, generating a tax bill of about $38 billion. That anticipated tax bill implies Apple intends to bring back about $245 billion of its overseas cash, based on the temporary tax rate of 15.5% on foreign profits.


Idiotic *failed* left-wing policy ensured that that money stayed overseas - benefiting other nations. Now it will return to the U.S. where it belongs - to benefit the U.S.

Apple Banks on Tax Break to Build 2nd Campus, Hire 20,000


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So. Much. Winning. We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods announced in a blog post Monday that his company will invest $50 billion in the U.S. over the next five years.
> 
> Woods credited both recent regulatory reform and the corporate tax rate cut that President Donald Trump signed into law last month for the company’s expansion plans. The tax rate was cut from 35% to 21%.
> 
> “These are all possible because of the resource base developed by our industry along with sound tax and regulatory policies that create a pro-growth business climate here in the U.S.,” Woods wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s such a shame that so many had to suffer for so long under the *failed* policies of the left. None of this is rocket science. Whoever creates the best climate for businesses will get the jobs and tax revenues that come with it.
> 
> Exxon Mobil CEO announces $50 billion investment in US production and jobs, credits tax cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All we needed to do was enact a tariff on their expatriated cash reserves.  treat them like solar.
Click to expand...

We already did what we needed to do - lowered tax rates to make the U.S. competitive with other nations. We had the highest corporate tax rates in the world under Obama. It ended failure. We’re now doing the exact opposite and getting the opposite result of failure.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Sound, proven conservative policy doing what it always does - creating unimaginable prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Apple is planning to build a new corporate campus and hire 20,000 U.S. workers in an expansion *driven in part by a tax cut* that will enable the iPhone maker to bring an estimated $245 billion back to its home country.
> 
> The pledge announced Wednesday comes less than a month after Congress approved a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax code championed by President Donald Trump that will increase corporate profits.
> 
> Besides dramatically lowering the standard corporate tax rate, the reforms offer a one-time break on cash held overseas.
> 
> Apple plans to take advantage of that provision to *bring back most of its roughly $252 billion in offshore cash*, generating a tax bill of about $38 billion. That anticipated tax bill implies Apple intends to bring back about $245 billion of its overseas cash, based on the temporary tax rate of 15.5% on foreign profits.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic *failed* left-wing policy ensured that that money stayed overseas - benefiting other nations. Now it will return to the U.S. where it belongs - to benefit the U.S.
> 
> Apple Banks on Tax Break to Build 2nd Campus, Hire 20,000
Click to expand...

FDRs social programs brought the US out of the third world and even electrified the South.


----------



## The Original Tree

P@triot said:


> What an _exceptional_ blueprint for education....
> 
> *At this college, the tuition is nowhere near the $150,000 to $200,000 for a four-year degree that the elite top-tier universities are charging. At College of the Ozarks, tuition is free. That’s right. The school’s nearly 1,400 students don’t pay a dime in tuition during their time there.
> 
> So what’s the catch? All the college’s students—without exception—pay for their education by working 15 hours a week on campus. The jobs are plentiful because this school—just a few miles from Branson, a popular tourist destination—operates its own mill, a power plant, fire station, four-star restaurant and lodge, museum and dairy farm.
> 
> Some students from low-income homes also spend 12 weeks of summer on campus working to cover their room and board. Part of the students’ grade point average is determined by how they do on the job, and those who shirk their work duties are tossed out. The jobs range from campus security to cooking and cleaning hotel rooms, tending the hundreds of cattle, building new dorms and buildings, to operating the power plant.*
> 
> This College Takes Hard Work Seriously -- And Kids Want to Go There


*THIS HERE....is how all Colleges should work.  They also would need less Federal Dollars to operate.*


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> FDRs social programs brought the US out of the third world


Why do you insist on *lying*? 

1. The U.S. (from its very inception) was never “third world”

2. FDR single-handedly caused the Great Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom


----------



## P@triot

The Original Tree said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an _exceptional_ blueprint for education....
> 
> *At this college, the tuition is nowhere near the $150,000 to $200,000 for a four-year degree that the elite top-tier universities are charging. At College of the Ozarks, tuition is free. That’s right. The school’s nearly 1,400 students don’t pay a dime in tuition during their time there.
> 
> So what’s the catch? All the college’s students—without exception—pay for their education by working 15 hours a week on campus. The jobs are plentiful because this school—just a few miles from Branson, a popular tourist destination—operates its own mill, a power plant, fire station, four-star restaurant and lodge, museum and dairy farm.
> 
> Some students from low-income homes also spend 12 weeks of summer on campus working to cover their room and board. Part of the students’ grade point average is determined by how they do on the job, and those who shirk their work duties are tossed out. The jobs range from campus security to cooking and cleaning hotel rooms, tending the hundreds of cattle, building new dorms and buildings, to operating the power plant.*
> 
> This College Takes Hard Work Seriously -- And Kids Want to Go There
> 
> 
> 
> *THIS HERE....is how all Colleges should work.  They also would need less Federal Dollars to operate.*
Click to expand...

The left knows that this is not only a flawless economic solution - but that it also teaches work ethic and provides real-world experience/skills.

But you know what it doesn’t do? It doesn’t redistribute wealth and it doesn’t give the left power over anyone. And that is why they hate it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDRs social programs brought the US out of the third world
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on *lying*?
> 
> 1. The U.S. (from its very inception) was never “third world”
> 
> 2. FDR single-handedly caused the Great Depression
> 
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
> 
> Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression
> 
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...

socialism already took us to the Moon and back, last millennium even with massive deficits.  the private sector is still waiting on a profit motive.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> socialism already took us to the Moon and back, last millennium even with massive deficits.  the private sector is still waiting on a profit motive.


Socialism took every nation to hell and beyond in the last millennium. Thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism already took us to the Moon and back, last millennium even with massive deficits.  the private sector is still waiting on a profit motive.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism took every nation to hell and beyond in the last millennium. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Mixed market economies are first world not third world.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism already took us to the Moon and back, last millennium even with massive deficits.  the private sector is still waiting on a profit motive.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism took every nation to hell and beyond in the last millennium. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mixed market economies are first world not third world.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Every socialist nation on the planet is a third-world shithole. The “mixed market” economies survive because free market capitalism bails it out over and over and over.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. It’s a shame that so many have suffered unnecessarily for so long under *failed* progressive policy...

Tax Reform |


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism already took us to the Moon and back, last millennium even with massive deficits.  the private sector is still waiting on a profit motive.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism took every nation to hell and beyond in the last millennium. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mixed market economies are first world not third world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bingo. Every socialist nation on the planet is a third-world shithole. The “mixed market” economies survive because free market capitalism bails it out over and over and over.
Click to expand...

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

Third world countries are third world, because they rely on capitalism, not the socialism of a mixed market economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Third world countries are third world, because they rely on capitalism.


Bwahahaha! This is why nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. You can’t name a single third-world nation operating under capitalism.

Venezuela was once the (thirteenth?) wealthiest nation in the world. Then they turned to socialism, completely collapsed, and are now a third-world shithole.

Cuba? Not an ounce of free market capitalism. A third-world shithole thanks to socialism.

The former U.S.S.R., Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam. The list goes on and on. Would you care to share with the class whether you are a pathological liar or ignorant of the facts?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Third world countries are third world, because they rely on capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha! This is why nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. You can’t name a single third-world nation operating under capitalism.
> 
> Venezuela was once the (thirteenth?) wealthiest nation in the world. Then they turned to socialism, completely collapsed, and are now a third-world shithole.
> 
> Cuba? Not an ounce of free market capitalism. A third-world shithole thanks to socialism.
> 
> The former U.S.S.R., Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam. The list goes on and on. Would you care to share with the class whether you are a pathological liar or ignorant of the facts?
Click to expand...

Mogadishu used to be a shining example of Anarcho-Capitalism.

Second world economies are not first world economies.

We simply have a better mixed market economy.

And, simply having a Central Bank means we are using

Command Economics.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Mogadishu used to be a shining example of Anarcho-Capitalism.


Repeating a left-wing *lie* doesn’t make it any less of a lie. Mogadishu was vintage left-wing society. Dictators with guns and attempting to control _everything_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu used to be a shining example of Anarcho-Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a left-wing *lie* doesn’t make it any less of a lie. Mogadishu was vintage left-wing society. Dictators with guns and attempting to control _everything_.
Click to expand...

You just were not paying attention, as I was.  Mogadishu was a shining example of a functioning AnCap.  It was in the papers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu used to be a shining example of Anarcho-Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a left-wing *lie* doesn’t make it any less of a lie. Mogadishu was vintage left-wing society. Dictators with guns and attempting to control _everything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just were not paying attention, as I was.  Mogadishu was a shining example of a functioning AnCap.  It was in the papers.
Click to expand...

There were warring factions - each attempting to control the masses at the barrel of a gun. That’s a vintage left-wing society. Thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu used to be a shining example of Anarcho-Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a left-wing *lie* doesn’t make it any less of a lie. Mogadishu was vintage left-wing society. Dictators with guns and attempting to control _everything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just were not paying attention, as I was.  Mogadishu was a shining example of a functioning AnCap.  It was in the papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were warring factions - each attempting to control the masses at the barrel of a gun. That’s a vintage left-wing society. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Nope; a western reporter went over there and made that comparison.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were warring factions - each attempting to control the masses at the barrel of a gun. That’s a vintage left-wing society. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; a western reporter went over there and made that comparison.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t care any less about reporters. I focus on reality. And the reality was - Mogadishu had warring factions attempting to control all of society at the barrel of a gun (free market capitalism doesn’t do anything at the barrel of a gun). It was vintage left-wing society. Thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were warring factions - each attempting to control the masses at the barrel of a gun. That’s a vintage left-wing society. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; a western reporter went over there and made that comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn’t care any less about reporters. I focus on reality. And the reality was - Mogadishu had warring factions attempting to control all of society at the barrel of a gun (free market capitalism doesn’t do anything at the barrel of a gun). It was vintage left-wing society. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

You are not a reporter.  And, the reality is, it was a shining example of anarcho-capitalism, for a little while.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You are not a reporter.  And, the reality is, it was a shining example of anarcho-capitalism, for a little while.


You’re right...I have too much integrity to be in a field that is the propaganda arm for the Dumbocrat Party. The indisputable fact is that Mogadishu was a vintage left-wing society. People with guns controlling people without guns. Thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not a reporter.  And, the reality is, it was a shining example of anarcho-capitalism, for a little while.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re right...I have too much integrity to be in a field that is the propaganda arm for the Dumbocrat Party. The indisputable fact is that Mogadishu was a vintage left-wing society. People with guns controlling people without guns. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

The government of South Africa fell after only three years of sanctions.  Cuba is still with us.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The government of South Africa fell after only three years of sanctions.  *Cuba is still with us*.


Yep - and still in a perpetual state of poverty. Incidentally, why is it that you lefties never denounce your U.S. citizenship and go live in Cuba since they have _everything_ you claim to want? Oops...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of South Africa fell after only three years of sanctions.  *Cuba is still with us*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - and still in a perpetual state of poverty. Incidentally, why is it that you lefties never denounce your U.S. citizenship and go live in Cuba since they have _everything_ you claim to want? Oops...
Click to expand...

It is an Island and we did have an Embargo on it, for a lot longer than the embargo on capitalist South Africa.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of South Africa fell after only three years of sanctions.  *Cuba is still with us*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - and still in a perpetual state of poverty. Incidentally, why is it that you lefties never denounce your U.S. citizenship and go live in Cuba since they have _everything_ you claim to want? Oops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is an Island...
Click to expand...

Very good Daniel. Very good. It _is_ an island. Now - would you like to address the issue?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government of South Africa fell after only three years of sanctions.  *Cuba is still with us*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - and still in a perpetual state of poverty. Incidentally, why is it that you lefties never denounce your U.S. citizenship and go live in Cuba since they have _everything_ you claim to want? Oops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is an Island...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very good Daniel. Very good. It _is_ an island. Now - would you like to address the issue?
Click to expand...

we did have an Embargo on it, for a lot longer than the embargo on capitalist South Africa.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we did have an Embargo on it


So what? If an “embargo” from a single nation is enough to send another nation into perpetual poverty, then socialism is even weaker than I realized.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we did have an Embargo on it
> 
> 
> 
> So what? If an “embargo” from a single nation is enough to send another nation into perpetual poverty, then socialism is even weaker than I realized.
Click to expand...

It is right off our coast.  Full trade status would not result in the same thing; especially now that we are discussing it in the open, and can goad them into modernization.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we did have an Embargo on it
> 
> 
> 
> So what? If an “embargo” from a single nation is enough to send another nation into perpetual poverty, then socialism is even weaker than I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right off our coast.
Click to expand...

Very good Daniel. Very good. Cuba _is_ right off the coast of the U.S. You continue to make great strides in your studies.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has shown time and time again exactly what works (conservative policy) and what doesn’t (failed progressive policy).

Steel company says it will give a big bonus to workers if Trump tariffs pass


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has shown time and time again exactly what works (conservative policy) and what doesn’t (failed progressive policy).


> Work requirements have a proven record of success in moving people from welfare to self-sufficiency. In 2015, Maine began enforcing work requirements for food stamps despite partial waiver eligibility and saw an 80% drop in its work-capable caseload in just three months. Thirteen counties in Alabama saw similar results when they implemented work requirements for food stamps in 2017.



Work Requirements Have Revolutionized Welfare at the State Level. Now It’s Uncle Sam’s Turn.


----------



## P@triot

What *President Trump* (and the Republicans) have done is nothing short of astounding. They have built one of the best economies in U.S. history...


> Throughout the March quarter, Apple has paid over $3.2 billion in dividends, and they have plans to boost those payments up another 16% going forward. And the hits just keep on coming for Apple investors.
> 
> Apple has also announced the construction of a new mega-campus, and they’re looking at adding over 20,000 new jobs. Over the next 5 years, they’ll add $350 billion to the US economy.


Nancy Pelosi tried to call the tax cuts "crumbs". The results have not even been the whole bag of bread - they've been the whole damn bakery!!! Record highs in the market. Record lows in unemployment. Companies investing in their people and their infrastructure (just as history has proven over and over and over).

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Thankfully, President Trump and the Republicans are following that blueprint.

Sorry Nancy Pelosi, Apple’s record-shattering buyback program is proof positive tax breaks work


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we take the right wing even less seriously, when they insist on alleged, right to work States and still indulge poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what liberty is all about - indulging people in their personal choices. And make no mistake, poverty _is_ a personal choice.
> 
> There isn’t a single person in the U.S. who chooses not to live in poverty that ends up in poverty. They might be poor - but not in poverty. Even working minimum wage will keep one out of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is Not a Personal choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. Just _choose_ to out perform your competition and you will *never* be unemployed.
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy and not even in right wing, right to work States; even if everyone obtains a doctorate, with Capitalism's, _natural_ rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. It works every time without fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Disney will give a $1,000 bonus to 125,000 full- and part-time employees. The company will also spend $50 million to launch a higher education initiative that assists hourly employees with tuition.
> 
> 
> 
> More money in the pocket of Americans and more opportunities. The polar opposite of what left-wing policy delivers.
> 
> Disney to give $1,000 bonuses to 125,000 employees and create a higher education program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While our infrastructure erodes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better our “infrastructure” erodes than our families. Under Obama and the Dumbocrats, poverty was rampant. Under *President Trump* and the Republicans, prosperity is rampant.
Click to expand...

right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  we have a First Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.


----------



## RealDave

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has shown time and time again exactly what works (conservative policy) and what doesn’t (failed progressive policy).
> 
> Steel company says it will give a big bonus to workers if Trump tariffs pass


Lets compare the economies under Republican & Democrats the last 25 years.

Tax cuts under the Republicans under Bush led to the worst recession in 80 years & your team just borrowed 1.5 trillion to do it again.

If Republicans are doing such a great job, why is every single Republican running for Congress in my district are running against the current actions of Congress.  
Our Rep quit.  None are running to keerp up the good work.

So really, cut the mental masturbation you are doing & get informed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only in right wing fantasy and not even in right wing, right to work States; even if everyone obtains a doctorate, with Capitalism's, _natural_ rate of unemployment.


That’s because a doctorate isn’t an indication of _anything_ in the real world. And therein lies your problem. You’re literally too stupid to understand what employers want (hint: it’s *not* a doctorate).


----------



## P@triot

RealDave said:


> Tax cuts under the Republicans under Bush led to the worst recession in 80 years & your team just borrowed 1.5 trillion to do it again.


George W. Bush *wasn’t* President of the United States when the “worst recession in 80 years” hit. It was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.


It’s been done, my ignorant little snowflake. A $15 an hour minimum wage is a blueprint for *poverty*.

Analysis | A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

$15 Minimum Wage Study Shows Bleak Future For California

Why The $15 Minimum Wage Will Cost California 400,000 Jobs

Report: California’s $15 Minimum Wage Will Destroy 400,000 Jobs


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy and not even in right wing, right to work States; even if everyone obtains a doctorate, with Capitalism's, _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because a doctorate isn’t an indication of _anything_ in the real world. And therein lies your problem. You’re literally too stupid to understand what employers want (hint: it’s *not* a doctorate).
Click to expand...

i can rely on statistics, on this one.


----------



## danielpalos

> The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.



Shouldn't Labor simply be able to find another minimum wage job?  It isn't like it is another autoworker job.

Seattle unemployment rate is around 3.8 percent.  The US unemployment rate is 4.1 percent.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Labor simply be able to find another minimum wage job?  It isn't like it is another autoworker job.
Click to expand...

Nope. Several things happen with failed, ignorant left-wing policy like this...

Businesses drastically raise rates to cover drastic increase in labor costs. This causes inflation - and the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the raise. However, the rest of society is much further behind as they received no raise and now their dollar doesn’t buy nearly as much.

Businesses close down over the costs. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.

Businesses recognize that this is a perpetual, idiotic left-wing fight and that their money would be better spent on automation. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.

Businesses cuts hours of their minimum wage worker. The minimum wage worker walks away with less money per week than before the increase.
If only progressives understood basic economics.


----------



## RealDave

P@triot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts under the Republicans under Bush led to the worst recession in 80 years & your team just borrowed 1.5 trillion to do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> George W. Bush *wasn’t* President of the United States when the “worst recession in 80 years” hit. It was Barack Insane Obama and the Dumbocrats, snowflake.
Click to expand...

The Bush recession started 4th quarter of 2007.

Once again you prove yourself to be nothing but a dumbass TRumpette.


----------



## RealDave

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Labor simply be able to find another minimum wage job?  It isn't like it is another autoworker job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Several things happen with failed, ignorant left-wing policy like this...
> 
> Businesses drastically raise rates to cover drastic increase in labor costs. This causes inflation - and the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the raise. However, the rest of society is much further behind as they received no raise and now their dollar doesn’t buy nearly as much.
> 
> Businesses close down over the costs. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.
> 
> Businesses recognize that this is a perpetual, idiotic left-wing fight and that their money would be better spent on automation. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.
> 
> Businesses cuts hours of their minimum wage worker. The minimum wage worker walks away with less money per week than before the increase.
> If only progressives understood basic economics.
Click to expand...



You have no logic.  

If minimum age goes up 20%, you think all prices go up 20%. That is just plain stupid.

Your idea that we should subsidize minimum wage paying employers is again, stupid.  

Businesses hire because they need workers.  If they don't need them to work all those hours, they would not be doing it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Labor simply be able to find another minimum wage job?  It isn't like it is another autoworker job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Several things happen with failed, ignorant left-wing policy like this...
> 
> Businesses drastically raise rates to cover drastic increase in labor costs. This causes inflation - and the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the raise. However, the rest of society is much further behind as they received no raise and now their dollar doesn’t buy nearly as much.
> 
> Businesses close down over the costs. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.
> 
> Businesses recognize that this is a perpetual, idiotic left-wing fight and that their money would be better spent on automation. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.
> 
> Businesses cuts hours of their minimum wage worker. The minimum wage worker walks away with less money per week than before the increase.
> If only progressives understood basic economics.
Click to expand...

so what if right wingers fail; all they know how to do is "make it on cheap labor".  the third world or any other State in the Union, is cheaper.  

The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.

The unemployment rate in Seattle, is still lower than the national average.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.


I just explained how that wasn’t true. Because you are a low IQ, minimum wage worker, I will explain it to you _again_...

Businesses drastically raise rates to cover drastic increase in labor costs. This causes inflation - and the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the raise. However, the rest of society is much further behind as they received no raise and now their dollar doesn’t buy nearly as much.

Businesses close down over the costs. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.

Businesses recognize that this is a perpetual, idiotic left-wing fight and that their money would be better spent on automation. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.

Businesses cuts hours of their minimum wage worker. The minimum wage worker walks away with less money per week than before the increase.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.


If you were worthy of $15 per hour, you would be able to earn that rate without government *forcing* someone else to give it to you.

Only fascists achieve their desires through force. Tells us all we need to know about _you_.


----------



## P@triot

RealDave said:


> You have no logic.


But I do have something you don’t have: *facts*.


> Researchers at the University of Washington, who were commissioned by the city, found that when wages went up to $13 in 2016, *low-wage workers saw their hours drop by 9%*.
> 
> *Workers ultimately made $125 less each month*, on average, the report found.
> 
> "For every $1 worth of increased wages, we are seeing $3 worth of lost employment opportunities," said Jacob Vigdor, one of the study's authors.


It’s hilarious how easy you progressives have been duped by your masters. You guys can’t even bring yourselves to accept _basic_ economics.

New study casts doubt on the benefit of Seattle's $15 minimum wage


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The unemployment rate in Seattle, is still lower than the national average.


And low-wage workers are _still_ making less money than their counterparts across the nation.


> Researchers at the University of Washington, who were commissioned by the city, found that when wages went up to $13 in 2016, *low-wage workers saw their hours drop by 9%*.
> 
> *Workers ultimately made $125 less each month*, on average, the report found.
> 
> "For every $1 worth of increased wages, we are seeing $3 worth of lost employment opportunities," said Jacob Vigdor, one of the study's authors.


Nothing increases poverty like idiotic, failed, left-wing policy.

New study casts doubt on the benefit of Seattle's $15 minimum wage


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained how that wasn’t true. Because you are a low IQ, minimum wage worker, I will explain it to you _again_...
> 
> Businesses drastically raise rates to cover drastic increase in labor costs. This causes inflation - and the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the raise. However, the rest of society is much further behind as they received no raise and now their dollar doesn’t buy nearly as much.
> 
> Businesses close down over the costs. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.
> 
> Businesses recognize that this is a perpetual, idiotic left-wing fight and that their money would be better spent on automation. Less jobs all the way around for the minimum wage worker.
> 
> Businesses cuts hours of their minimum wage worker. The minimum wage worker walks away with less money per week than before the increase.
Click to expand...

The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.

The unemployment rate in Seattle, is still lower than the national average.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were worthy of $15 per hour, you would be able to earn that rate without government *forcing* someone else to give it to you.
> 
> Only fascists achieve their desires through force. Tells us all we need to know about _you_.
Click to expand...

just right wing propaganda. 

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, by comparison.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unemployment rate in Seattle, is still lower than the national average.
> 
> 
> 
> And low-wage workers are _still_ making less money than their counterparts across the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers at the University of Washington, who were commissioned by the city, found that when wages went up to $13 in 2016, *low-wage workers saw their hours drop by 9%*.
> 
> *Workers ultimately made $125 less each month*, on average, the report found.
> 
> "For every $1 worth of increased wages, we are seeing $3 worth of lost employment opportunities," said Jacob Vigdor, one of the study's authors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing increases poverty like idiotic, failed, left-wing policy.
> 
> New study casts doubt on the benefit of Seattle's $15 minimum wage
Click to expand...

Flawed test?  A lower unemployment rate means, Labor should simply, "vote with their feet" for any minimum wage jobs in Any decent economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were worthy of $15 per hour, you would be able to earn that rate without government *forcing* someone else to give it to you.
> 
> Only fascists achieve their desires through force. Tells us all we need to know about _you_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing propaganda.
Click to expand...

Just left-wing parasites not willing to admit that if you were worthy of $15 per hour, you would be able to earn that rate without government *forcing* someone else to give it to you.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Flawed test?


It wasn’t a “test”, snowflake. It was the actual results of *failed* left-wing policy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.


If minimum wage employers are cutting hours of their current employees due to labor costs, they sure as hell aren't going to be hiring additional minimum wage workers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.


This is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else for that matter).

If minimum wage employers are cutting hours of their current employees due to labor costs, they sure as hell aren't going to be hiring additional minimum wage workers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, is a blueprint for prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were worthy of $15 per hour, you would be able to earn that rate without government *forcing* someone else to give it to you.
> 
> Only fascists achieve their desires through force. Tells us all we need to know about _you_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just left-wing parasites not willing to admit that if you were worthy of $15 per hour, you would be able to earn that rate without government *forcing* someone else to give it to you.
Click to expand...

Who's fault is it, they cannot make like Henry Ford and double autoworker wages instead of whining about having to double, minimum wages.  

Why shouldn't capitalists who can _Only_ make it on cheap labor, fail?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flawed test?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t a “test”, snowflake. It was the actual results of *failed* left-wing policy.
Click to expand...

seems like right wing propaganda and rhetoric, with a low unemployment rate; where Labor can simply get another minimum wage job, in Any decent economy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.
> 
> 
> 
> If minimum wage employers are cutting hours of their current employees due to labor costs, they sure as hell aren't going to be hiring additional minimum wage workers.
Click to expand...

You make it seem like _minimum_ _wage_ jobs should not be plentiful, in Any "booming right wing economy".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage worker should merely find another minimum wage employer, with better hours.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else for that matter).
> 
> If minimum wage employers are cutting hours of their current employees due to labor costs, they sure as hell aren't going to be hiring additional minimum wage workers.
Click to expand...

why is the unemployment rate so low?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Who's fault is it, they cannot make like Henry Ford and double autoworker wages instead of whining about having to double, minimum wages.


It is _your_ fault...since you are stripping the free market away from them. Especially when you have absolutely no authority to do so.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why shouldn't capitalists who can _Only_ make it on cheap labor, fail?


Why shouldn’t minimum wage workers be forced to live off of $4.00 per hour?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Who's fault is it, they cannot make like Henry Ford and double autoworker wages instead of whining about having to double, minimum wages.


Well for starters, Henry Ford wasn’t paying into Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the highest corporate tax rates in the _world_.

Additionally, Henry Ford did that on his own. Of his own free will. Without government coercion. You just made the ultimate case for why they *shouldn’t* have minimum wage forced on them. _Oops_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flawed test?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t a “test”, snowflake. It was the actual results of *failed* left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *seems* like right wing propaganda and rhetoric
Click to expand...

Key word - _seems_. As you are a low IQ, minimum wage worker, I’m sure a lot of things that are not _seem_ as though they are. But the *reality* is, the results show that progressive policy took low-wage workers and forced them into a situation where they  brought home even less. Just like Venezuela.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> why is the unemployment rate so low?


The unemployment rate has hit *record* *lows* across the entire U.S. thanks to proven, successful, conservative policy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's fault is it, they cannot make like Henry Ford and double autoworker wages instead of whining about having to double, minimum wages.
> 
> 
> 
> It is _your_ fault...since you are stripping the free market away from them. Especially when you have absolutely no authority to do so.
Click to expand...

We have a mixed market economy and always have; any more, red herrings?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't capitalists who can _Only_ make it on cheap labor, fail?
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn’t minimum wage workers be forced to live off of $4.00 per hour?
Click to expand...

We have a first world economy not a third world economy; Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's fault is it, they cannot make like Henry Ford and double autoworker wages instead of whining about having to double, minimum wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, Henry Ford wasn’t paying into Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the highest corporate tax rates in the _world_.
> 
> Additionally, Henry Ford did that on his own. Of his own free will. Without government coercion. You just made the ultimate case for why they *shouldn’t* have minimum wage forced on them. _Oops_.
Click to expand...

The point is, If one Capitalist could do, it; it Must be an Individual problem not an Institutional problem.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flawed test?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t a “test”, snowflake. It was the actual results of *failed* left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *seems* like right wing propaganda and rhetoric
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Key word - _seems_. As you are a low IQ, minimum wage worker, I’m sure a lot of things that are not _seem_ as though they are. But the *reality* is, the results show that progressive policy took low-wage workers and forced them into a situation where they  brought home even less. Just like Venezuela.
Click to expand...

We have a mixed market economy; we simply have a better Constitution.  Even the clueless and Causeless right wing, hasn't broken it, yet.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is the unemployment rate so low?
> 
> 
> 
> The unemployment rate has hit *record* *lows* across the entire U.S. thanks to proven, successful, conservative policy.
Click to expand...

Yet, Seattle has a lower unemployment rate than the national average, even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.  How can that be?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a mixed market economy and always have; any more, red herrings?


That’s not true at all. In 1776 it was capitalism in its purest form. That continued through the 1800’s. It wasn’t until the rise of the failed progressive ideology in the early 1900’s that we saw the law being violated.

Any more *lies* you would like to attempt?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is the unemployment rate so low?
> 
> 
> 
> The unemployment rate has hit *record* *lows* across the entire U.S. thanks to proven, successful, conservative policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Seattle has a lower unemployment rate than the national average, even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.  How can that be?
Click to expand...

Because the $15 per hour hasn’t been enacted long enough to change what conservatives have achieved. But it’s already causing the poor to become poorer.

Nothing creates widens wealth disparity like failed left-wing policy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a first world economy not a third world economy


So you admit you’re trying to turn us into Venezuela and alter our first world nation into a third world nation? Wow. Just...._wow_.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> Jobs would be bountiful. With low taxes, people would have a lot of money in their pockets for their future and to spend on goods and services in the economy. With private foundations handling the social needs, governments could eliminate their crushing debts (despite the lower taxes). Most of all, it retains liberty for the American people. The blueprint is there. Ask yourself why anyone would oppose proven policies?


By all means, the country is dying for a big tax cut for the non rich, a big tax hike on the ridiculously bloated rich, and investment in America. If only Democrats could get real control again, super duper Dupe. Your idea o t o h, is a recurring GOP disaster. Except for the Mega rich of course...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a mixed market economy and always have; any more, red herrings?
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not true at all. In 1776 it was capitalism in its purest form. That continued through the 1800’s. It wasn’t until the rise of the failed progressive ideology in the early 1900’s that we saw the law being violated.
> 
> Any more *lies* you would like to attempt?
Click to expand...

You simply resort to a fallacy of false Cause.  Government was nowhere near the more exact science it is now.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is the unemployment rate so low?
> 
> 
> 
> The unemployment rate has hit *record* *lows* across the entire U.S. thanks to proven, successful, conservative policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, Seattle has a lower unemployment rate than the national average, even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.  How can that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the $15 per hour hasn’t been enacted long enough to change what conservatives have achieved. But it’s already causing the poor to become poorer.
> 
> Nothing creates widens wealth disparity like failed left-wing policy.
Click to expand...

Why can't Labor, simply find another employer with better hours, with such a low unemployment rate?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a first world economy not a third world economy
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you’re trying to turn us into Venezuela and alter our first world nation into a third world nation? Wow. Just...._wow_.
Click to expand...

that is Your, "cheap labor" story, bro.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a first world economy not a third world economy
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you’re trying to turn us into Venezuela and alter our first world nation into a third world nation? Wow. Just...._wow_.
Click to expand...

 talk about brainwashed... You make no sense LOL. Think Australia and New Zealand so you don't fall into your usual bigotry and brainwash. Idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

...a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage result in more income tax revenue!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a mixed market economy and always have; any more, red herrings?
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not true at all. In 1776 it was capitalism in its purest form. That continued through the 1800’s. It wasn’t until the rise of the failed progressive ideology in the early 1900’s that we saw the law being violated.
> 
> Any more *lies* you would like to attempt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply resort to a fallacy of false Cause.  Government was nowhere near the more exact science it is now.
Click to expand...

You simply resort to the idiocy of “use words and terms I’ve heard so people don’t view me as the low IQ minimum wage worker I am”. But you use them all wrong. First of all, government is *not* an “exact science”. It’s not even close. In fact, it’s about the furthest thing from an “exact science” that it can be. Secondly, what does that have to do with anything, anyway?!? We were talking about economics (capitalism vs. “mixed market” economy...remember). Good grief you struggle to keep up with basic discussions.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> ...a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage result in more income tax revenue!


It actually results in exponentially *less* tax revenue as many are laid off and others have their hours reduced to keep labor costs where they were. 

You are a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_ (especially economics).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why can't Labor, simply find another employer with better hours, with such a low unemployment rate?


Because there won’t be a “low unemployment rate” when you idiots *force* people to pay wages far beyond the worth of the labor. Unemployment will skyrocket (just as it has done in the parts of California that followed failed left-wing Venezuela policy).

Tell us - how are the tax revenues and unemployment rates for all of these out of work Walmart employees, junior?

Walmart Closes LA Store Over $15 Minimum Wage | Breitbart


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a first world economy not a third world economy
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you’re trying to turn us into Venezuela and alter our first world nation into a third world nation? Wow. Just...._wow_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your, "cheap labor" story, bro.
Click to expand...

No...that is _your_ ignorant “I want the U.S. to collapse like Venezuela” story just because your envious of other people who have more than you do.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a mixed market economy and always have; any more, red herrings?
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not true at all. In 1776 it was capitalism in its purest form. That continued through the 1800’s. It wasn’t until the rise of the failed progressive ideology in the early 1900’s that we saw the law being violated.
> 
> Any more *lies* you would like to attempt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply resort to a fallacy of false Cause.  Government was nowhere near the more exact science it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply resort to the idiocy of “use words and terms I’ve heard so people don’t view me as the low IQ minimum wage worker I am”. But you use them all wrong. First of all, government is *not* an “exact science”. It’s not even close. In fact, it’s about the furthest thing from an “exact science” that it can be. Secondly, what does that have to do with anything, anyway?!? We were talking about economics (capitalism vs. “mixed market” economy...remember). Good grief you struggle to keep up with basic discussions.
Click to expand...

the fact is, Government already took us to the Moon and back; the private sector hasn't.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage result in more income tax revenue!
> 
> 
> 
> It actually results in exponentially *less* tax revenue as many are laid off and others have their hours reduced to keep labor costs where they were.
> 
> You are a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_ (especially economics).
Click to expand...

You still don't get it.  The minimum wage is still, the minimum wage; got Labor?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't Labor, simply find another employer with better hours, with such a low unemployment rate?
> 
> 
> 
> Because there won’t be a “low unemployment rate” when you idiots *force* people to pay wages far beyond the worth of the labor. Unemployment will skyrocket (just as it has done in the parts of California that followed failed left-wing Venezuela policy).
> 
> Tell us - how are the tax revenues and unemployment rates for all of these out of work Walmart employees, junior?
> 
> Walmart Closes LA Store Over $15 Minimum Wage | Breitbart
Click to expand...

Seattle has a lower unemployment rate than the national average. 

How many times can WalMart say, "No".  Capitalists have to make lucre.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a first world economy not a third world economy
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you’re trying to turn us into Venezuela and alter our first world nation into a third world nation? Wow. Just...._wow_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your, "cheap labor" story, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...that is _your_ ignorant “I want the U.S. to collapse like Venezuela” story just because your envious of other people who have more than you do.
Click to expand...

that is right wing Labor policy; work or die.  Is it Any wonder, there is Any Chaos.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the fact is, Government already took us to the Moon and back; the private sector hasn't.


The fact is - it took government unimaginable billions and many years of failure to achieve it, while the private sector *never* attempted to reach the moon.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You still don't get it.


Said _every_ tool who was ever proven wrong. The left either can’t grasp basic economics or refuses to accept it (just like they refuse to accept science).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact is, Government already took us to the Moon and back; the private sector hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is - it took government unimaginable billions and many years of failure to achieve it, while the private sector *never* attempted to reach the moon.
Click to expand...

the private sector has still, not gone to the Moon.  the public sector went there, last millennium.

we would have been better off with a Mission to Mars, than our wasteful, war on drugs.


----------



## P@triot

Lower tax rates, less regulations, and more “right to work” states have all resulted in exactly what conservatives said it would - more employment resulting in higher tax revenues to the federal government.


> The federal government took in a record tax haul in April en route to its biggest-ever monthly budget surplus, the Congressional Budget Office said, as a surging economy left Americans with more money in their paychecks — and this more to pay to Uncle Sam.


But it didn’t just end there. With Republicans in control of everything, we have a more fiscally responsibile government cutting back on the waste, fraud, and abuse the Democrats handed this nation - resulting in the biggest surplus for the month.


> All told the government collected $515 billion and spent $297 billion, for a total monthly *surplus of $218 billion*.


We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven over and over and over that conservative policies ends in prosperity and progressive policies end in poverty.

CBO says April was best month in history for U.S. budget


----------



## danielpalos

lol.  just the right wing taking credit for normal market volatility.  how serious can the right really be.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> just the right wing taking credit for normal market *volatility*.


Only Daniel here could call astounding economic prosperity “volatility”. 

We’ve reached astounding economic success thanks to conservative policies across the U.S. And with each metric indicating as much, Daniel is forced to deny more reality and make more excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just the right wing taking credit for normal market *volatility*.
> 
> 
> 
> Only Daniel here could call astounding economic prosperity “volatility”.
> 
> We’ve reached astounding economic success thanks to conservative policies across the U.S. And with each metric indicating as much, Daniel is forced to deny more reality and make more excuses.
Click to expand...

dude; the markets were already trending favorably.  it is not like, "your guy" had to actually turn our economy around and bailout the rich.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> dude; the markets were already trending favorably.


Yeah...thanks to the American people handing the entire damn nation over to conservatives during the 2010 midterm elections. What took us from “favorable” to record breaking was replacing Barack Insane Obama (who illegally disrupted sound, proven, successful policy with unconstitutional Executive Orders) to *President Trump* (who legally and constitutionally facilitates pro-growth, pro-business policies).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; the markets were already trending favorably.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...thanks to the American people handing the entire damn nation over to conservatives during the 2010 midterm elections. What took us from “favorable” to record breaking was replacing Barack Insane Obama (who illegally disrupted sound, proven, successful policy with unconstitutional Executive Orders) to *President Trump* (who legally and constitutionally facilitates pro-growth, pro-business policies).
Click to expand...

what pro business policies?  trade wars and pollution is what we seem to be getting.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> what pro business policies?  trade wars and pollution is what we seem to be getting.


Approved the Keystone Pipeline. Approved the Dakota Pipeline. Lowered taxes. Eliminated _every_ unconstitutional Obama Executive Order that was anti-business. Renegotiated trade agreements to favor the U.S.

I can’t tell if you feign ignorance or if you actually are that ignorant. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for you.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what pro business policies?  trade wars and pollution is what we seem to be getting.
> 
> 
> 
> Approved the Keystone Pipeline. Approved the Dakota Pipeline. Lowered taxes. Eliminated _every_ unconstitutional Obama Executive Order that was anti-business. Renegotiated trade agreements to favor the U.S.
> 
> I can’t tell if you feign ignorance or if you actually are that ignorant. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for you.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing claims trade wars are good for an economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only the right wing claims trade wars are good for an economy.


Only the left doesn’t understand basic economics.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only the right wing claims trade wars are good for an economy.


Only the left claims things that have never happened are currently happening.


----------



## danielpalos

trends were already favorable.  just the right wing taking credit for normal market volatility, so far.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> trends were already favorable.  just the right wing taking credit for normal market volatility, so far.


Yes they were...thanks to the American people handing the entire nation over to conservatives in the 2010 midterm elections. They went to work immediately and things started turning around. The final piece of the puzzle was recapturing the White House - which prevented the Dumbocrats from unconstitutionally interfering as Obama did over and over.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> trends were already favorable.  just the right wing taking credit for normal market volatility, so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were...thanks to the American people handing the entire nation over to conservatives in the 2010 midterm elections. They went to work immediately and things started turning around. The final piece of the puzzle was recapturing the White House - which prevented the Dumbocrats from unconstitutionally interfering as Obama did over and over.
Click to expand...

trends were already favorable;  all the right wing did was help the already rich, get richer faster.

there is still nothing for infrastructure.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> all the right wing did was help the already rich, get richer *faster*.


So you openly admit that conservatives build wealth and do it faster? About time. 


danielpalos said:


> there is still nothing for infrastructure.


Don’t move the goalposts. We were discussing the economy. And, Obama had 8 years to do “something for infrastructure”. As the left always does, he failed. Furthermore, he spent $10 trillion beyond his budget - none of which he used to improve infrastructure (instead he stole it by making all of his pals crazy wealthy). Further still, because he did, that we’re $20 trillion in debt and now unable to address infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos

at the expense of the poor.  why am i not impressed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> at the expense of the poor.  why am i not impressed.


Nothing occurs at the “expense” of the poor. Absolutely _nothing_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> at the expense of the poor.  why am i not impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing occurs at the “expense” of the poor. Absolutely _nothing_.
Click to expand...

sure it does.  a lack of equal protection of the law, is at the expense of the poor, not the rich, every time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a lack of equal protection of the law


Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has, and it does.  The rich get richer faster, as a result.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it has, and it does.  The rich get richer faster, as a result.
Click to expand...

Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it has, and it does.  The rich get richer faster, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
Click to expand...

it is happening now.  the right wing merely likes to complain about problems, not solve problems.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it has, and it does.  The rich get richer faster, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is happening now.  the right wing merely likes to complain about problems, not solve problems.
Click to expand...

It not only isn’t happening right now...it literally has *never* happened in the modern era. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it any more true.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law
> 
> 
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it has, and it does.  The rich get richer faster, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that that has literally *never* happened in the modern era. Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is happening now.  the right wing merely likes to complain about problems, not solve problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It not only isn’t happening right now...it literally has *never* happened in the modern era. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it any more true.
Click to expand...

I don't need to resort to fallacy; unlike the right wing.  

Yes, the rich are getting richer faster at the expense of the poor; and the right wing, is All for it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes, the rich are getting richer faster at the expense of the poor.


That’s as idiotic and immature as someone saying “the intelligent are getting wiser at the expense of the stupid”. 

The poor doesn’t have anything to start with - and what little they do have - the wealthy sure as hell doesn’t need.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the rich are getting richer faster at the expense of the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s as idiotic and immature as someone saying “the intelligent are getting wiser at the expense of the stupid”.
> 
> The poor doesn’t have anything to start with - and what little they do have - the wealthy sure as hell doesn’t need.
Click to expand...

financing government is simple income redistribution.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> financing government is simple income redistribution.


You literally have the IQ of a mosquito. That sentence doesn’t even make sense. Financing government is financing government. And wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution. Two distinctly different issues.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> financing government is simple income redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> You literally have the IQ of a mosquito. That sentence doesn’t even make sense. Financing government is financing government. And wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution. Two distinctly different issues.
Click to expand...

sure; the rich get richer faster, and social services get cut for the poor.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> social services get cut for the poor.


The poor shouldn’t even _have_ “social services”.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> social services get cut for the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> The poor shouldn’t even _have_ “social services”.
> 
> View attachment 193618
Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.  Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.


Not it’s not. At least not in that context. If you want to play that game, ALL social legislation (welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) is null and void as Congress is *not* permitted to create legislation. It is in our U.S. Constituion.


> “Congress shall make no law” - 1st Amendment


That clearly and indisputably states that Congress shall *not* make law. Thanks for playing, Daniel.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Not it’s not. At least not in that context. If you want to play that game, ALL social legislation (welfare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) is null and void as Congress is *not* permitted to create legislation. It is in our U.S. Constituion.
> 
> 
> 
> “Congress shall make no law” - 1st Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That clearly and indisputably states that Congress shall *not* make law. Thanks for playing, Daniel.
Click to expand...

confusing the issue is a right wing specialty.

providing for the general welfare is a general power, not a common power; it says so in our Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> confusing the issue is a right wing specialty.


Getting owned with facts (and then crying about it) is a left-wing speciality.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> providing for the general welfare is a general power, not a common power; it says so in our Constitution.


“Providing for the General Welfare” isn’t a power at all (neither general nor common). It says so, right in the U.S. Constitution.

Nobody could be this ignorant. You’re clearly a paid Russian troll attempting to create conflict between the right and the left in this country. It’s no coincidence that your account just happened to be created at the time Russia under took that endeavor.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> confusing the issue is a right wing specialty.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting owned with facts (and then crying about it) is a left-wing speciality.
Click to expand...

non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.  thank Goodness, i like to work on my tolerance, for practice if not always for fun. 

providing for the general welfare is a general power, not a common power; it says so in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> providing for the general welfare is a general power, not a common power; it says so in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> “Providing for the General Welfare” isn’t a power at all (neither general nor common). It says so, right in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Nobody could be this ignorant. You’re clearly a paid Russian troll attempting to create conflict between the right and the left in this country. It’s no coincidence that your account just happened to be created at the time Russia under took that endeavor.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  It is a general power; it says so in the same sentence as the common power, for the common defense.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it is.  It is a general power; it says so in the same sentence as the common power, for the common defense.


It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, Russian troll. It doesn’t make it any less of a lie.

The U.S. Constituiton explicitly grants the federal government 18 enumerated powers and “provide for the general welfare” is *not* one of them. All one must do to see that is actually read the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  It is a general power; it says so in the same sentence as the common power, for the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, Russian troll. It doesn’t make it any less of a lie.
> 
> The U.S. Constituiton explicitly grants the federal government 18 enumerated powers and “provide for the general welfare” is *not* one of them. All one must do to see that is actually read the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  It says so in the same sentence as the power for the Common defense, not the general defense.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. It is indisputable. History has proven it time and time again.


> In April, the U.S. economy added 164,000 jobs (slightly lower than experts’ predictions) and the unemployment rate reached its lowest level in over 17 years, at 3.9 percent. That’s down from 4.8 percent, the rate when President Donald Trump took office. In addition to this, the U.S. is setting employment records for African-Americans, women, Hispanics, and workers without high school diplomas.


All we need to do to continuously thrive is to ignore progressive propaganda.

Low Unemployment Rate Proves Pro-Growth Policies Work


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. It is indisputable. History has proven it time and time again.
> 
> 
> 
> In April, the U.S. economy added 164,000 jobs (slightly lower than experts’ predictions) and the unemployment rate reached its lowest level in over 17 years, at 3.9 percent. That’s down from 4.8 percent, the rate when President Donald Trump took office. In addition to this, the U.S. is setting employment records for African-Americans, women, Hispanics, and workers without high school diplomas.
> 
> 
> 
> All we need to do to continuously thrive is to ignore progressive propaganda.
> 
> Low Unemployment Rate Proves Pro-Growth Policies Work
Click to expand...

increasing Debt, proves they don't.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> increasing Debt, proves they don't.


Republicans didn’t create and pass Social Security into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass welfare into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass Medicaid into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass Obamacare into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass Medicare into law.

Don’t try to blame Republicans for the left-winf failures you leverage to mooch off of.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> increasing Debt, proves they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans didn’t create and pass Social Security into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass welfare into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass Medicaid into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass Obamacare into law. Republicans didn’t create and pass Medicare into law.
> 
> Don’t try to blame Republicans for the left-winf failures you leverage to mooch off of.
Click to expand...

Simply cutting taxes helps the rich get richer; it does nothing for infrastructure.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Simply cutting taxes helps the rich get richer; it does nothing for infrastructure.


Uh...you were just proven wrong on this a few posts back. Cutting taxes allows businesses to keep more of their own capital for growth. That’s why we have experienced record lows in unemployment under *President Trump* and the Republicans.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply cutting taxes helps the rich get richer; it does nothing for infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...you were just proven wrong on this a few posts back. Cutting taxes allows businesses to keep more of their own capital for growth. That’s why we have experienced record lows in unemployment under *President Trump* and the Republicans.
Click to expand...

it does Nothing for Infrastructure.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it does Nothing for Infrastructure.



A. The federal government isn’t responsible for “infrastructure”. 

B. Yes it does. Tax revenues to the federal government have been _higher_ post tax cuts.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does Nothing for Infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. The federal government isn’t responsible for “infrastructure”.
> 
> B. Yes it does. Tax revenues to the federal government have been _higher_ post tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is; No, it doesn't; or we would not be so much in debt.  Speculative exuberance means nothing, in the long run.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does Nothing for Infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> A. The federal government isn’t responsible for “infrastructure”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is
Click to expand...

No, it’s not, snowflake. Just because you repeat your ignorance doesn’t change anything. The federal government is explicitly limited to 18 enumerated powers and “infrastructure” is *not* one of them.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does Nothing for Infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> B. Yes it does. Tax revenues to the federal government have been _higher_ post tax cuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't; *or we would not be so much in debt*.
Click to expand...

Well that is astoundingly ignorant, even by your normal standards of astounding ignorance. Barack Insane Obama drastically _increased_ taxes. At the same time, Dumbocrats keep creating unconstitutional entitlements. And *that* is why we are in so much debt.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does Nothing for Infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> A. The federal government isn’t responsible for “infrastructure”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it’s not, snowflake. Just because you repeat your ignorance doesn’t change anything. The federal government is explicitly limited to 18 enumerated powers and “infrastructure” is *not* one of them.
Click to expand...

Where is this alleged, limitation to be found, right wingers.  Reading comprehension is what our right wing hangups are usually all about.

Explanations and qualification are simply that.  Post aqueducts and post roads, are Infrastructure.  A useless War of 1812, was not.


----------



## P@triot

Conservative policy _always_ ends in prosperity. Progressive policy _always_ ends in perpetual poverty (and the need for government to provide the basics just to survive - which is by design).

Great News: The Fewest Americans In 8 Years Are Dependent On Government For Food


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Conservative policy _always_ ends in prosperity. Progressive policy _always_ ends in perpetual poverty (and the need for government to provide the basics just to survive - which is by design).
> 
> Great News: The Fewest Americans In 8 Years Are Dependent On Government For Food


Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.


Socialism has a natural rate of extreme perpetual poverty.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...

These 5 Changes Would Fix the Nation's Budget Woes


----------



## dannyboys

Watched A. Bourdain yesterday.
If anyone on the planet knew what the conditions in socialist countries were like it was him.
Quote: "The one thing every socialist country has in common is the poor are always fucked over and the socialist leaders are always rich bastards".
Nuff said.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism has a natural rate of extreme perpetual poverty.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  

We even have a general welfare clause to help with the general prosperity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> These 5 Changes Would Fix the Nation's Budget Woes


I don't see anything about ending our alleged Wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  The Right Wing does Not want to Pay, Wartime Tax rates for them; moochers.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> Conservative policy _always_ ends in prosperity. Progressive policy _always_ ends in perpetual poverty (and the need for government to provide the basics just to survive - which is by design).
> 
> Great News: The Fewest Americans In 8 Years Are Dependent On Government For Food


Starve more people?
Great Christian values


----------



## ph3iron

dannyboys said:


> Watched A. Bourdain yesterday.
> If anyone on the planet knew what the conditions in socialist countries were like it was him.
> Quote: "The one thing every socialist country has in common is the poor are always fucked over and the socialist leaders are always rich bastards".
> Nuff said.


Giving back your leftist SS Medicare VA benefits then?
We are a combination of socialist and free programs.
Heard of the S&P 500?


----------



## ph3iron

dannyboys said:


> Watched A. Bourdain yesterday.
> If anyone on the planet knew what the conditions in socialist countries were like it was him.
> Quote: "The one thing every socialist country has in common is the poor are always fucked over and the socialist leaders are always rich bastards".
> Nuff said.



What is corporate welfare/ people welfate?
10/1?
No one bitching about Exxon?
Just the black welfare queens whose food stamps are zero compared to our oil boys?


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> What is corporate welfare/ people welfate?


Uh...excuse me..._you_ cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” GM. You cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” Chrysler. You cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” Solyndra. You cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” Wall Street.

Who has been behind almost 100% of the “corporate welfare”? The Dumbocrats. And then you people whine about it after cheering for it.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Giving back your leftist SS Medicare VA benefits then?


As soon as the federal government gives me back all of my money that they stole from me to pay for those “programs”, I will gladly opt out of them.

Oh wait...that’s right...there is no choice or liberty with the left. They do _everything_ at the barrel of a gun. It speaks volumes that you don’t allow people to opt out.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is corporate welfare/ people welfate?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...excuse me..._you_ cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” GM. You cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” Chrysler. You cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” Solyndra. You cheered like hell when MaObama “bailed out” Wall Street.
> 
> Who has been behind almost 100% of the “corporate welfare”? The Dumbocrats. And then you people whine about it after cheering for it.
Click to expand...

So what is the corporate/ public ratio?
That was the subject.
I presume you sent back your SS Medicare?
Who cheered?
In your small mind.
Actually I'm a filthy rich drug company millionaire who sucked off rubes to make my money.
Never voted for a dem in my life.
Good old American way, "I've got mine, screw you"
Dumbocrats? The limit of your intelligence?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back your leftist SS Medicare VA benefits then?
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the federal government gives me back all of my money that they stole from me to pay for those “programs”, I will gladly opt out of them.
> 
> Oh wait...that’s right...there is no choice or liberty with the left. They do _everything_ at the barrel of a gun. It speaks volumes that you don’t allow people to opt out.
> 
> View attachment 206836
Click to expand...

You do know the average old white fart like you and me collect 40% more than we ever put in?
Guess not, mr Dumbocrat humor


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Good old American way, "I've got mine, screw you"


Actually, the “good old American way” is “I’ve got mine...and I’ll decide for myself how much I give you”. That’s why progressives hate liberty so much.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> You do know the average old white fart like you and me collect 40% more than we ever put in?


Then the Dumbocrats should be more than happy to let me opt out! It will save them 40%. So strange that they still don’t let me opt out.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know the average old white fart like you and me collect 40% more than we ever put in?
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Dumbocrats should be more than happy to let me opt out! It will save them 40%. So strange that they still don’t let me opt out.
> 
> View attachment 206974
Click to expand...

Dumbocrats ?
Still time to go to college and take a vocabulary course.
What's stopping you from opting out?
File a brief or give it back.
But I'm assuming you are an old white fart sucking off the gov teat?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know the average old white fart like you and me collect 40% more than we ever put in?
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Dumbocrats should be more than happy to let me opt out! It will save them 40%. So strange that they still don’t let me opt out.
> 
> View attachment 206974
Click to expand...

At least you know about the 40 % now.
Don't have to spew knees news garbage anymore


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good old American way, "I've got mine, screw you"
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the “good old American way” is “I’ve got mine...and I’ll decide for myself how much I give you”. That’s why progressives hate liberty so much.
Click to expand...

Terrific selfish attitude.
Hence "ugly American" in ROW.
Loud, bragging, never been in a real conflict in their lives.
Hence the ROW suggestion "all Americans need is to have the crap bombed out of them night after night"
Trump is the perfect example


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving back your leftist SS Medicare VA benefits then?
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the federal government gives me back all of my money that they stole from me to pay for those “programs”, I will gladly opt out of them.
> 
> Oh wait...that’s right...there is no choice or liberty with the left. They do _everything_ at the barrel of a gun. It speaks volumes that you don’t allow people to opt out.
> 
> View attachment 206836
Click to expand...

I guess you are for Ben franklins attempt to ban German immigrants "they are swarthy, can't speak our language and are taking our jobs"
Sound familiar?


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> What's stopping you from opting out?


People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> At least you know about the 40 % now. Don't have to spew knees news garbage anymore


What I know is that either your full of shit or the Dumbocrats are even dumber than I thought.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good old American way, "I've got mine, screw you"
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the “good old American way” is “I’ve got mine...and I’ll decide for myself how much I give you”. That’s why progressives hate liberty so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Terrific selfish attitude.
Click to expand...

Horrible *ignorant* comment. There is nothing “selfish” about *liberty*. People died to ensure I could to choose for myself _if_ I give. And if I do, how much. I don’t care that a greedy little parasite like you doesn’t like it. Their sacrifice trumps your fragile ‘lil feelings.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I guess you are for Ben franklins attempt to ban German immigrants "they are swarthy, can't speak our language and are taking our jobs" Sound familiar?


I guess _you_ are for Adolf Hitler’s attempt to ban everything - including firearms and books. Typical statist.


----------



## P@triot

This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...

Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider


Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...


----------



## BluesLegend

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
Click to expand...


You realize the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.


----------



## BluesLegend

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
Click to expand...


Amazon is so evil, its largest shareholder assists companies with company sponsored retirement plans, also endowments, and foundations. Its CEO omg he once served as chairman of the board of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. _(blueslegend said while mocking franco)_


----------



## francoHFW

BluesLegend said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.
Click to expand...

Less and less all the time..


----------



## francoHFW

BluesLegend said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazon is so evil, its largest shareholder assists companies with company sponsored retirement plans, also endowments, and foundations. Its CEO omg he once served as chairman of the board of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. _(blueslegend said while mocking franco)_
Click to expand...

Try and remain calm... Another giant company who's killing the run of the mill workers. But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP give away to the rich tax policy.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP give away to the rich tax policy.


All evidence to the contrary. But you never were one to accept reality. You prefer your fake narrative. What a shame. As BluesLegend pointed out, the middle class is invested in Amazon. They not only enjoy their products and services, they are getting wealthy off of them as well.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP *give away to the rich tax policy*.


Stop being such a _greedy_ parasite. For starters, *nothing* was “given” to the wealthy. The money was already theirs. Second, I’m middle class and I do received a nice tax break.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP *give away to the rich tax policy*.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being such a _greedy_ parasite. For starters, *nothing* was “given” to the wealthy. The money was already theirs. Second, I’m middle class and I do received a nice tax break.
Click to expand...

83% of the tax cuts went to the bloated rich and giant corporations. There is a reason why every country in the world ever has and had higher rates for the rich and investment in the rest. Including us.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from opting out?
> 
> 
> 
> People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.
> 
> View attachment 207120
Click to expand...

So I assume you are in your batchchairreturning your SS ?
Probably chant you put in when people get 40% more out of it than they put in?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP *give away to the rich tax policy*.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being such a _greedy_ parasite. For starters, *nothing* was “given” to the wealthy. The money was already theirs. Second, I’m middle class and I do received a nice tax break.
Click to expand...

Not me.
I made my millions sucking off uneducated rubes


----------



## ph3iron

BluesLegend said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.
Click to expand...


Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP *give away to the rich tax policy*.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being such a _greedy_ parasite. For starters, *nothing* was “given” to the wealthy. The money was already theirs. Second, I’m middle class and I do received a nice tax break.
Click to expand...

I am happily retired, brainwashed functional moron. After 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, we have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the developed world. But thanks for the right wing BS common sense, brainwashed functional idiot.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from opting out?
> 
> 
> 
> People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.
> 
> View attachment 207120
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I assume you are in your batchchair returning your SS ?
Click to expand...

1. I’m not retired, chief

2. Why would I “return” what was already mine? You force me into SS and then you want me to let you keep *my* money? Really? Seriously? 

Why can’t I just opt out? You don’t take my money, I don’t take your “benefits”. What’s the problem, chief.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
> Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult


> 50 % don't pay taxes. Part of our greedy parasite class.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> *I made my millions* sucking off uneducated rubes


Sure you did...


----------



## BluesLegend

ph3iron said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
> Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult
Click to expand...


No really, its a fact, trillions. Many of them are public employees and teachers why do you hate them?


----------



## ph3iron

BluesLegend said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
> Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No really, its a fact, trillions. Many of them are public employees and teachers why do you hate them?
Click to expand...

Still < 50%
Who hates who?
I'm a millionaire so can't be bothered to hate anyone


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from opting out?
> 
> 
> 
> People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.
> 
> View attachment 207120
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I assume you are in your batchchair returning your SS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I’m not retired, chief
> 
> 2. Why would I “return” what was already mine? You force me into SS and then you want me to let you keep *my* money? Really? Seriously?
> 
> Why can’t I just opt out? You don’t take my money, I don’t take your “benefits”. What’s the problem, chief.
Click to expand...

Nothing's stopping you from refusing your SS and medicare and VA
Give it to charity if you are so self fighteous


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I made my millions* sucking off uneducated rubes
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did...
Click to expand...

Ah, the truth hurts.
Corporate drug guy, been overcharging the rubes for ever


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
> Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult
> 
> 
> 
> > 50 % don't pay taxes. Part of our greedy parasite class.
Click to expand...


Including self righteous white boys like you who will take out 40% more than you ever put in


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from opting out?
> 
> 
> 
> People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.
> 
> View attachment 207120
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I assume you are in your batchchair returning your SS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I’m not retired, chief
> 
> 2. Why would I “return” what was already mine? You force me into SS and then you want me to let you keep *my* money? Really? Seriously?
> 
> Why can’t I just opt out? You don’t take my money, I don’t take your “benefits”. What’s the problem, chief.
Click to expand...


You will be darlin.
I would have thought such a high and mighty patriot would give all your commie benefits to charity.
Still believe our Ben tried to ban German immigrants?
"They are swarthy, can't speak our language, and are taking our jobs"
Sound familiar?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from opting out?
> 
> 
> 
> People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.
> 
> View attachment 207120
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I assume you are in your batchchair returning your SS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I’m not retired, chief
> 
> 2. Why would I “return” what was already mine? You force me into SS and then you want me to let you keep *my* money? Really? Seriously?
> 
> Why can’t I just opt out? You don’t take my money, I don’t take your “benefits”. What’s the problem, chief.
Click to expand...


Because you are such a high principled guy.?


----------



## ph3iron

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP *give away to the rich tax policy*.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being such a _greedy_ parasite. For starters, *nothing* was “given” to the wealthy. The money was already theirs. Second, I’m middle class and I do received a nice tax break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am happily retired, brainwashed functional moron. After 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, we have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the developed world. But thanks for the right wing BS common sense, brainwashed functional idiot.
Click to expand...


How many trillions have we given to the oil industry?


----------



## ph3iron

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP *give away to the rich tax policy*.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being such a _greedy_ parasite. For starters, *nothing* was “given” to the wealthy. The money was already theirs. Second, I’m middle class and I do received a nice tax break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 83% of the tax cuts went to the bloated rich and giant corporations. There is a reason why every country in the world ever has and had higher rates for the rich and investment in the rest. Including us.
Click to expand...

And what was the highest rate when we were booming?
90%?
What is middle class these days?
$120K a year?


----------



## ph3iron

BluesLegend said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when conservatives are in charge of everything. Unprecedented prosperity...
> 
> Amazon becomes the 2nd US company to join the $1 trillion club (AMZN) | Markets Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unprecedented prosperity for giant corporations and the Mega rich, greater and greater inequality and worse and worse upward Mobility. Great job super dupers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
> Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No really, its a fact, trillions. Many of them are public employees and teachers why do you hate them?
Click to expand...


Hate to confuse our old white forum with facts but

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/08/13/5-figures-that-define-the-middle-class. asps
Still jealous of our pussy grabber who had the worst job creation in 6 years?
Knees news never told you?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the point is that small business and the middle class and the rest continue to go to hell under GOP give away to the rich tax policy.
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary. But you never were one to accept reality. You prefer your fake narrative. What a shame. As BluesLegend pointed out, the middle class is invested in Amazon. They not only enjoy their products and services, they are getting wealthy off of them as well.
Click to expand...


Pity it's only 1/2, trump cult prob less
5 Figures That Define the Middle Class


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from opting out?
> 
> 
> 
> People like _you_. Social Security is *not* an option. They take your money whether you want to be a part of it or not.
> 
> View attachment 207120
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I assume you are in your batchchair returning your SS ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I’m not retired, chief
> 
> 2. Why would I “return” what was already mine? You force me into SS and then you want me to let you keep *my* money? Really? Seriously?
> 
> Why can’t I just opt out? You don’t take my money, I don’t take your “benefits”. What’s the problem, chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing's stopping you from refusing your SS and medicare and VA
> Give it to charity if you are so self fighteous
Click to expand...

I can’t tell if you’re acting stupid or you really are this stupid. I’ve explained it to you as clear as possible. You want to steal my money and then expect me to “refuse” getting back what was stolen from me.

That’s typical left-wing greed and ignorance. So I’ll ask your ignorant ass again: *why can’t I opt out*? You don’t tax me for those programs, I won’t accept assistance from those programs. That is *fair*. Unlike your ignorant socialist “I’ll take your money, then you refuse those programs later” approach.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I made my millions* sucking off uneducated rubes
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the truth hurts.
Click to expand...

It does! And it’s hurting you right now since you’re on the wrong side of it.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I would have thought such a high and mighty patriot would give all your commie benefits to charity.


I would have thought you wouldn’t have to hold a gun to the head of citizens and force them into a program if that program was worth a damn.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> After 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, we have the *worst inequality* and upward Mobility ever and in the developed world..


There is no such thing as “inequality”. There is only disparity in effort, talent, and production.

LeBron James grew up in extreme poverty. He’s a billionaire today. He made the effort to develop his talent, and the result was an extremely high level of production.

You wanted to mooch off of society (you still do) and thus you made no effort. That lack of effort resulted in little to know productivity. And that resulted in low income.

You want to convince people wealth is handed out so you can continue to mooch and so you don’t have to take personal responsibility for yourself.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Including self righteous white boys like you who will take out 40% more than you ever put in


If that were even remotely true, allowing me to opt out of SS, Medicare, etc. would be a *huge* advantage for you statists. And yet you refuse to allow people to opt out. Proof that you’re either full of shit or astoundingly ignorant.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, we have the *worst inequality* and upward Mobility ever and in the developed world..
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as “inequality”. There is only disparity in effort, talent, and production.
> 
> LeBron James grew up in extreme poverty. He’s a billionaire today. He made the effort to develop his talent, and the result was an extremely high level of production.
> 
> You wanted to mooch off of society (you still do) and thus you made no effort. That lack of effort resulted in little to know productivity. And that resulted in low income.
> 
> You want to convince people wealth is handed out so you can continue to mooch and so you don’t have to take personal responsibility for yourself.
Click to expand...

You think every Democrat is on Welfare and never has done anything you are an absolute brainwashed twit. I was a teacher and businessman and am happily retired, you incredibly stupid ass hole. Sorry about Caring about Americans and America. Change the channel from the GOP BS and hate propaganda machine, twit.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including self righteous white boys like you who will take out 40% more than you ever put in
> 
> 
> 
> If that were even remotely true, allowing me to opt out of SS, Medicare, etc. would be a *huge* advantage for you statists. And yet you refuse to allow people to opt out. Proof that you’re either full of shit or astoundingly ignorant.
Click to expand...

Then chances are you would on welfare forever, statistically. Or without welfare you would be homeless and we would have to start poor houses again... We choose to be civilized now, barely.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, we have the *worst inequality* and upward Mobility ever and in the developed world..
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as “inequality”. There is only disparity in effort, talent, and production.
> 
> LeBron James grew up in extreme poverty. He’s a billionaire today. He made the effort to develop his talent, and the result was an extremely high level of production.
> 
> You wanted to mooch off of society (you still do) and thus you made no effort. That lack of effort resulted in little to know productivity. And that resulted in low income.
> 
> You want to convince people wealth is handed out so you can continue to mooch and so you don’t have to take personal responsibility for yourself.
Click to expand...

After 35 years of GOP  giveaway to the rich and cuts in services for the rest, we have the worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world, you incredibly ignorant brainwashed functional moron. Shove your ignorant "GOP common sense"up your ass.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich, we have the *worst inequality* and upward Mobility ever and in the developed world..
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as “inequality”. There is only disparity in effort, talent, and production.
> 
> LeBron James grew up in extreme poverty. He’s a billionaire today. He made the effort to develop his talent, and the result was an extremely high level of production.
> 
> You wanted to mooch off of society (you still do) and thus you made no effort. That lack of effort resulted in little to know productivity. And that resulted in low income.
> 
> You want to convince people wealth is handed out so you can continue to mooch and so you don’t have to take personal responsibility for yourself.
Click to expand...


Effort, talent and production?


That’s it?


Was don trump’s inheritance one of those? Because you could say that his coziness with Russian oligarchs money probably was a desperate effort in grifting.


Does getting cancer and flaming your savings and causing financial stress count against effort or production?


----------



## otto105

Also, considering the impacts of being in the trump inner circle do mounting legal bills and possible jail time fall under talent?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, > 50 % don't have a 401 or own stocks.
> Prob 75% of our pussy grabber cult
> 
> 
> 
> > 50 % don't pay taxes. Part of our greedy parasite class.
Click to expand...

the poor want to pay their share of Taxes,
we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Does getting cancer and flaming your savings and causing financial stress count against effort or production?


Nope. For starters, if the person in your idiotic left-wing bleeding heart example had taken care of their business, they would have had a quality health insurance policy. That’s the entire point of health insurance. So that it doesn’t wipe you out and cause you to experience “financial stress”. So the person in your example is an idiot who gets what they deserve.

Second, wealth can _always_ be rebuilt. It doesn’t require on to mooch off of society.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the poor want to pay their share of Taxes,


Great! Sign them up at 35% like the rest of us. 35% of $20,000 is only $7,000 so they can easily afford that!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage


That would burden them with an exponentially larger tax bill. You claim you don’t want to burden the poor. So stop calling for them to get ridiculous wages for menial tasks.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> ...and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.


We already _have_ “industrial automation”. And you complain about how it creates a “natural rate of unemployment”.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Sorry about Caring about Americans and America.


You don’t have to be “sorry”, francoHFW. You just have to actually do it. For some reason, you hate America and you don’t give a shit about Americans. If you did, you’d take care of those hurting yourself instead of demanding that government force everyone else to do it.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> We choose to be civilized now, barely.


There is *nothing* “civilized” about theft, Frankie.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> I was a teacher and businessman and am happily retired


Kudos to you, sir. A rare Democrat who held a job. I salute you.

Though I must say, I find it a bit disturbing that a partisan extremist such as yourself was tasked with educating children.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Effort, talent and production?


See what I mean about effort, otto105? $75,000 is WAY above $15 per hour. There is no college required. And it comes with benefits. Yet they can’t fill these positions. Know why? Because the Dumbocrats have created an entire generation of entitled assholes who refuse to work.

$75,000 a year with benefits; no college needed. Yet local employers can’t fill jobs


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poor want to pay their share of Taxes,
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Sign them up at 35% like the rest of us. 35% of $20,000 is only $7,000 so they can easily afford that!
Click to expand...

sure, after we raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poor want to pay their share of Taxes,
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Sign them up at 35% like the rest of us. 35% of $20,000 is only $7,000 so they can easily afford that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, after we raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.
Click to expand...

That drastically increases their tax burden. Why would you want to do that to the poor? Just because you’re a greedy parasite who mooches off of those tax dollars?


----------



## P@triot

This is what happens when you put Republicans in charge of everything.


> The report overall "serves as a capstone to one of the greatest labor market recovery periods of all time, with the economy creating new jobs in an impressive manner, and wage rates finally rising nicely," Rick Rieder, BlackRock's chief investment officer of global fixed income, said in a note.


We have the blueprint for prosperity. Proven conservative policy always ends in universal prosperity and failed progressive policy always ends in universal poverty.

Economy adds more jobs than expected in August, and wage growth hits post-recession high


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> This is what happens when you put Republicans in charge of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> The report overall "serves as a capstone to one of the greatest labor market recovery periods of all time, with the economy creating new jobs in an impressive manner, and wage rates finally rising nicely," Rick Rieder, BlackRock's chief investment officer of global fixed income, said in a note.
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Proven conservative policy always ends in universal prosperity and failed progressive policy always ends in universal poverty.
> 
> Economy adds more jobs than expected in August, and wage growth hits post-recession high
Click to expand...



Except when it doesn't....1929 and 2007.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poor want to pay their share of Taxes,
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Sign them up at 35% like the rest of us. 35% of $20,000 is only $7,000 so they can easily afford that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, after we raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That drastically increases their tax burden. Why would you want to do that to the poor? Just because you’re a greedy parasite who mooches off of those tax dollars?
Click to expand...

lol.  don't complain right wingers; the Poor are willing to be able to afford to pay income taxes!


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you put Republicans in charge of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> The report overall "serves as a capstone to one of the greatest labor market recovery periods of all time, with the economy creating new jobs in an impressive manner, and wage rates finally rising nicely," Rick Rieder, BlackRock's chief investment officer of global fixed income, said in a note.
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Proven conservative policy always ends in universal prosperity and failed progressive policy always ends in universal poverty.
> 
> Economy adds more jobs than expected in August, and wage growth hits post-recession high
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it doesn't....1929 and 2007.
Click to expand...

Republicans weren’t in charge of everything in 1929 or 2007, genuis. Who was Speaker of the House in 2007? Oh yeah - Nancy Pelosi (D). Why? Because Republicans weren’t in charge of the House. Who was Senate Majority Leader in 2007? Oh yeah - Harry Reid (D). Why? Because Republicans weren’t in charge of the Senate. And the same with 1929 too, chief.

This is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_. You guys never have any facts straight. You just fill boards with propaganda.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the Poor are willing to be able to afford to pay income taxes!


Well good! They already can so let’s get started on that.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when you put Republicans in charge of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> The report overall "serves as a capstone to one of the greatest labor market recovery periods of all time, with the economy creating new jobs in an impressive manner, and wage rates finally rising nicely," Rick Rieder, BlackRock's chief investment officer of global fixed income, said in a note.
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Proven conservative policy always ends in universal prosperity and failed progressive policy always ends in universal poverty.
> 
> Economy adds more jobs than expected in August, and wage growth hits post-recession high
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it doesn't....1929 and 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans weren’t in charge of everything in 1929 or 2007, genuis. Who was Speaker of the House in 2007? Oh yeah - Nancy Pelosi (D). Why? Because Republicans weren’t in charge of the House. Who was Senate Majority Leader in 2007? Oh yeah - Harry Reid (D). Why? Because Republicans weren’t in charge of the Senate. And the same with 1929 too, chief.
> 
> This is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_. You guys never have any facts straight. You just fill boards with propaganda.
Click to expand...


The congress which wrote the budget bills which expired in Sept 2007 (the governments fiscal year) and had set economic policy since 2001 were written by a senate and house controlled by republic pols which after 6 years of republic government caused an economic collapse.

better check your dick at the door wingnut.


----------



## otto105

I'm also sure you don't know what a Hoover flag was either.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Poor are willing to be able to afford to pay income taxes!
> 
> 
> 
> Well good! They already can so let’s get started on that.
Click to expand...

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being naturally unemployed in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.


----------



## danielpalos

laissez-faire economics are simply, too lazy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Poor are willing to be able to afford to pay income taxes!
> 
> 
> 
> Well good! They already can so let’s get started on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being naturally unemployed in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
Click to expand...

History has shown that a $15 an hour minimum wage puts minimum wage workers out of work. A 16-year old needs a job to put gas in their car. But they do *not* need $15 per hour.

And we already have “unemployment compensation” chief.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> laissez-faire economics are simply, too lazy.


Nooo...liberals are simply “too lazy”. The free market works harder, better, and more efficiently than any system ever created.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> The congress which wrote the budget bills which expired in Sept 2007 (the governments fiscal year) and had set economic policy since 2001 were written by a senate and house controlled by republic pols which after 6 years of republic government caused an economic collapse.
> 
> better check your dick at the door wingnut.


I’m sure you are all about checking dicks, princess but you just got bent over, bitch. Dumbocrats controlled Congress in 2007. And the budget had *nothing* to do with the economics collapse of 2009. Now be a good little queer and go eat a dick while you think about how I owned your stupid ass with facts.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Poor are willing to be able to afford to pay income taxes!
> 
> 
> 
> Well good! They already can so let’s get started on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being naturally unemployed in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History has shown that a $15 an hour minimum wage puts minimum wage workers out of work. A 16-year old needs a job to put gas in their car. But they do *not* need $15 per hour.
> 
> And we already have “unemployment compensation” chief.
Click to expand...

The right wing version, leaves too much to be desired.  

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, can solve simple poverty for adult, potential labor market participants.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> laissez-faire economics are simply, too lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> Nooo...liberals are simply “too lazy”. The free market works harder, better, and more efficiently than any system ever created.
Click to expand...

Capitalism died in 1929 making like, "John Henry".  Socialism has been bailing out capitalism, ever since.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The right wing version, *leaves too much to be desired*.


Much like your posts....which are filled with misinformation, propaganda, and ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism died in 1929 making like, "John Henry".  Socialism has been bailing out capitalism, ever since.


Capitalism has been bailing out socialism since Karl Marx. It was proven once again when MaObama and the Dumbocrats collapsed the world economy and conservatives rescued it after the 2010 mid-term “shellacking”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, can solve simple poverty for adult, potential labor market participants.


Sixteen year olds don’t need $15 per hour, snowflake. Stop being so greedy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing version, *leaves too much to be desired*.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your posts....which are filled with misinformation, propaganda, and ignorance.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing claims that; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism died in 1929 making like, "John Henry".  Socialism has been bailing out capitalism, ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has been bailing out socialism since Karl Marx. It was proven once again when MaObama and the Dumbocrats collapsed the world economy and conservatives rescued it after the 2010 mid-term “shellacking”.
Click to expand...

You simply have no understanding of economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, can solve simple poverty for adult, potential labor market participants.
> 
> 
> 
> Sixteen year olds don’t need $15 per hour, snowflake. Stop being so greedy.
Click to expand...

age discrimination?  why do employers need more cost breaks.  they already get a tax break for simply doing their job and paying wages.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing version, *leaves too much to be desired*.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your posts....which are filled with misinformation, propaganda, and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing claims that; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

No...only the *informed* claim that. It just so happens that _only_ the right is informed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You simply have no understanding of economics.


Says the child who doesn't even understand _basic_ economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing version, *leaves too much to be desired*.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like your posts....which are filled with misinformation, propaganda, and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing claims that; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...only the *informed* claim that. It just so happens that _only_ the right is informed.
Click to expand...

lol.  Only in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply have no understanding of economics.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the child who doesn't even understand _basic_ economics.
Click to expand...

I am not the one, Talking about not understanding, instead of advancing my understanding.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am not the one, Talking about not understanding, instead of advancing my understanding.


While you’re at it - would you also “advance” your “understanding” of grammar and the English language?


----------



## P@triot

Thank you *Mr. President* - for the unprecedented economic success. People of all races are flourishing (as _always_) under conservative policy. We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works (conservative policy) and what doesn’t work (progressive policy).

Hispanics flourishing in Trump economy


----------



## danielpalos

Tax cut economics are still worthless, if they don't cover Spending.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> sure, after we raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.


This is what happens with ignorant left-wing policy. You people take low-wage jobs and you instantly turn them in to *no* wage jobs.


> A report says that Amazon plans to open as many as 3,000 physical stores by 2021 – but without any cashiers.


Nice going, greedy dumb ass.

Amazon is planning a big move that will affect American jobs in a huge way


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure, after we raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens with ignorant left-wing policy. You people take low-wage jobs and you instantly turn them in to *no* wage jobs.
> 
> Amazon is planning a big move that will affect American jobs in a huge way
Click to expand...

The left wing has solutions, not only complaints.  Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour will mean capital Has to seek gains from Efficiency, not Cheap Labor, in our First World, not second world and not third world, Economy.


----------



## P@triot

For the past two years, conservatives have controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 of the 50 states. And we’ve seen unprecedented economic prosperity in the U.S. We have the blueprint for prosperity.

US weekly jobless claims drop to a near 49-year low


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The left wing has solutions, not only complaints.


Oh no doubt. The left has endless solutions...for prosperity. They just implement failed flood-up poverty economics and cause prosperity to come crashing down.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> For the past two years, conservatives have controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 of the 50 states. And we’ve seen unprecedented economic prosperity in the U.S. We have the blueprint for prosperity.
> 
> US weekly jobless claims drop to a near 49-year low


just a continuing trend. 

how is the deficit and the debt.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left wing has solutions, not only complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no doubt. The left has endless solutions...for prosperity. They just implement failed flood-up poverty economics and cause prosperity to come crashing down.
Click to expand...

help the rich get richer and blame the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the past two years, conservatives have controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 of the 50 states. And we’ve seen unprecedented economic prosperity in the U.S. We have the blueprint for prosperity.
> 
> US weekly jobless claims drop to a near 49-year low
> 
> 
> 
> just a continuing trend.
Click to expand...

Amen! Unprecedented prosperity due to proven conservative policy _is_ “just a continuing trend”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> help the rich get richer and blame the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.


What the “right-wing” does is facilitate liberty. They can’t help it if the wealthy is smarter than the poor. It’s not government’s job to make the poor money.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the past two years, conservatives have controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 of the 50 states. And we’ve seen unprecedented economic prosperity in the U.S. We have the blueprint for prosperity.
> 
> US weekly jobless claims drop to a near 49-year low
> 
> 
> 
> just a continuing trend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amen! Unprecedented prosperity due to proven conservative policy _is_ “just a continuing trend”.
Click to expand...

i have heard it described as a, "cocaine bump", by some more moderate economists.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> help the rich get richer and blame the Poor, is all the right wing knows how to do.
> 
> 
> 
> What the “right-wing” does is facilitate liberty. They can’t help it if the wealthy is smarter than the poor. It’s not government’s job to make the poor money.
Click to expand...

too rich to fail, regardless.   is more like it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> too rich to fail, regardless.   is more like it.


Too lazy and/or too dumb to succeed is exponentially more accurate.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too rich to fail, regardless.   is more like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too lazy and/or too dumb to succeed is exponentially more accurate.
Click to expand...

all we need is a bailout on at-will demand.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too rich to fail, regardless.   is more like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too lazy and/or too dumb to succeed is exponentially more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all we need is a bailout on at-will demand.
Click to expand...

What really need is to “bailout” of unconstitutional programs like welfare, Social Security, Obamacare, etc.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too rich to fail, regardless.   is more like it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too lazy and/or too dumb to succeed is exponentially more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all we need is a bailout on at-will demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really need is to “bailout” of unconstitutional programs like welfare, Social Security, Obamacare, etc.
Click to expand...

why bailout the already rich, at all?


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity.


> Over 700 companies have boosted wages and given bonuses and other benefits to their employees because of tax reform.


History has proven time and time again that conservative policies create prosperity and progressive policies create poverty.

How Trump Rescued Our Economy From Obama’s ‘New Normal’


----------



## danielpalos

equal protection of the law; a more justifiable and cost effective means to achieve the general welfare end.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *equal* *protection* of the law; a more justifiable and cost effective means to achieve the general welfare end.


We already have that. Next?


----------



## danielpalos

Minimum wage raise economics to generate more tax revenue instead of merely tax raise economics after right wing tax cut economics.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Minimum wage raise economics to generate more tax revenue


It’s already been *proven* that minimum wage hikes reduces salaries (resulting in reduced tax revenues) and eliminates jobs (resulting in no tax revenues). Next?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum wage raise economics to generate more tax revenue
> 
> 
> 
> It’s already been *proven* that minimum wage hikes reduces salaries (resulting in reduced tax revenues) and eliminates jobs (resulting in no tax revenues). Next?
Click to expand...

higher paid labor creates more in demand; and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, stabilizes markets.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum wage raise economics to generate more tax revenue
> 
> 
> 
> It’s already been *proven* that minimum wage hikes reduces salaries (resulting in reduced tax revenues) and eliminates jobs (resulting in no tax revenues). Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> higher paid labor creates more in demand; and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, stabilizes markets.
Click to expand...

It’s already been *proven* that minimum wage hikes reduces salaries (resulting in reduced tax revenues) and eliminates jobs (resulting in no tax revenues). Next?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum wage raise economics to generate more tax revenue
> 
> 
> 
> It’s already been *proven* that minimum wage hikes reduces salaries (resulting in reduced tax revenues) and eliminates jobs (resulting in no tax revenues). Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> higher paid labor creates more in demand; and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, stabilizes markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s already been *proven* that minimum wage hikes reduces salaries (resulting in reduced tax revenues) and eliminates jobs (resulting in no tax revenues). Next?
Click to expand...

we need to get rid of low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.  a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will function as a cost of living adjustment, and higher paid labor creates more in demand and pay more in taxes.  the laws of demand and supply work.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we need to get rid of low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services.


And that’s *exactly* what *failed* left-wing policy does. It gets rid of low-wage jobs and turns them into no-wage jobs as those positions are either automated or outsourced. People simply will not pay $15 per hour for unskilled labor. It’s truly a shame that you can’t grasp basic economics.


danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will function as a cost of living adjustment.


...will result in higher unemployment and lower wages for those that were lucky enough to hold onto their job. It’s been proven already. In Seattle. In Oakland.



danielpalos said:


> and higher paid labor creates more in demand and pay more in taxes.  the laws of demand and supply work.


Except that the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply here. At all. You think by creating supply (more money for unskilled labor), you can create demand. It doesn’t work that way, chief. Demand drives supply. Lack of supply for that demand drives prices higher. You haven’t grasped basic economics yet.


----------



## danielpalos

You don't know what you are talking about.  Higher paid labor creates more demand, in the long run.  The minimum wage is still the minimum wage.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will be a cost of living adjustment.  Higher paid labor creates more demand in the long run.  Unemployment compensation can pick up the slack in the short run.  Seattle has a lower unemployment rate as does San Francisco.  That means, more people will look for work with the higher wage.  

Yes, the laws of demand and supply always function.  Higher paid labor creates more in demand simply because the poor tend to spend most of their incomes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The minimum wage is still the minimum wage.


By that “logic” sparky, we should _lower_ the minimum wage. I mean, after all, “the minimum wage is still the minimum wage”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will be a cost of living adjustment.


Except that the cost of living has *not* increased 100% in the United States, you desperate dolt.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Higher paid labor creates more in demand simply because the poor tend to spend most of their incomes.


That’s because it takes most of their incomes for the basics, you dimwit. 

At the end of the day, business will not pay exorbitant salaries for unskilled labor, no matter how lazy or how greedy you are. You’re NOT getting $15 per hour, son. Period.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage is still the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic” sparky, we should _lower_ the minimum wage. I mean, after all, “the minimum wage is still the minimum wage”.
Click to expand...

it is about the economic concept of monopsony.  it is relevant due to the sovereignty of legal jurisdiction.

The Statutory minimum wage would be fifteen dollars an hour.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed would be fourteen dollars an hour, to compete with the equivalent cost of social services.

Full employment of capital resources by Labor, regardless of actual employment status can solve simple poverty in our Republic and First World, not Second World, or Third World Economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.


I’ve already proven that you are the one who doesn’t understand basic economics. And I’ll prove it yet again. This is from the left-wing University of Washington in the very left-wing Seattle Times.


> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*


Oops. Indisputable proof. This argument is officially over. You lose (again).

UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The Statutory minimum wage would be fifteen dollars an hour.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed would be fourteen dollars an hour, to compete with the equivalent cost of social services.


The “statutory” unemployment compensation would be $0.00 per hour and we will eliminate “social services”. We’re not paying people not to work - no matter how lazy and greedy you are.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The Statutory minimum wage would be fifteen dollars an hour.


That would cause the “statutory unemployment” to skyrocket (as it has done in Oakland, Seattle, etc.). There is a reason that left-wing cities are shitholes of filth and unemployment. This is from the left-wing University of Washington in the very left-wing Seattle Times.


> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*


Oops. Indisputable proof. This argument is officially over. You lose (again).

UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Full employment of capital resources by Labor, regardless of actual employment status can solve simple poverty in our Republic and First World, not Second World, or Third World Economy.


Vintage left-wing “logic” there. The belief that an economy can flourish “regardless of employment status”. This is from the left-wing University of Washington in the very left-wing Seattle Times.


> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*


The idiotic policies that you advocate for actually cause workers to come home with less money after the massive wage hike because businesses either eliminate their position or cut their hours. Nobody is paying $15 an hour for unskilled labor - no matter how lazy or greedy you are. The argument has been settled thanks to *facts*. Stop being a Paid Russian Troll and take your ideology back to Moscow. Tell Putin I said he’s a queer.

UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Full employment of capital resources by Labor, regardless of actual employment status *can* *solve* *simple* *poverty*...


1. That’s an epic fail already. I’m not interested in “can” (because left-wing “can” _always_ turns into left-wing DIDN’T). I’m only interested in “will”. As in, the facts prove it *will* solve a problem.

2. Government isn’t authorized/empowered to “solve simple poverty”. Sorry. You don’t get to break the law just because you don’t like something. The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear - the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states and “solving simple poverty” isn’t one of them.

3. You know what actually “solves simple poverty”? Getting up every day and going to work. Holding down a job. Being a productive member of society.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve already proven that you are the one who doesn’t understand basic economics. And I’ll prove it yet again. This is from the left-wing University of Washington in the very left-wing Seattle Times.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops. Indisputable proof. This argument is officially over. You lose (again).
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour would solve capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency. 

Metadata for the general welfare, not the general warfare!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statutory minimum wage would be fifteen dollars an hour.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed would be fourteen dollars an hour, to compete with the equivalent cost of social services.
> 
> 
> 
> The “statutory” unemployment compensation would be $0.00 per hour and we will eliminate “social services”. We’re not paying people not to work - no matter how lazy and greedy you are.
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy, are they moral enough to resort to True capitalism.  

We Have Government, and Government costs. Our welfare clause is general; it says so.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that is a social, market failure and capital inefficiency.  Our welfare clause must cover that contingency; for the general welfare and the general prosperity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Statutory minimum wage would be fifteen dollars an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> That would cause the “statutory unemployment” to skyrocket (as it has done in Oakland, Seattle, etc.). There is a reason that left-wing cities are shitholes of filth and unemployment. This is from the left-wing University of Washington in the very left-wing Seattle Times.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops. Indisputable proof. This argument is officially over. You lose (again).
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
Click to expand...

in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand; how long that takes is the result of public policy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full employment of capital resources by Labor, regardless of actual employment status can solve simple poverty in our Republic and First World, not Second World, or Third World Economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage left-wing “logic” there. The belief that an economy can flourish “regardless of employment status”. This is from the left-wing University of Washington in the very left-wing Seattle Times.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idiotic policies that you advocate for actually cause workers to come home with less money after the massive wage hike because businesses either eliminate their position or cut their hours. Nobody is paying $15 an hour for unskilled labor - no matter how lazy or greedy you are. The argument has been settled thanks to *facts*. Stop being a Paid Russian Troll and take your ideology back to Moscow. Tell Putin I said he’s a queer.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
Click to expand...

in the short run, intermediate run, or long run?  markets must reach some new equilibrium and higher paid labor must create more demand.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full employment of capital resources by Labor, regardless of actual employment status *can* *solve* *simple* *poverty*...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That’s an epic fail already. I’m not interested in “can” (because left-wing “can” _always_ turns into left-wing DIDN’T). I’m only interested in “will”. As in, the facts prove it *will* solve a problem.
> 
> 2. Government isn’t authorized/empowered to “solve simple poverty”. Sorry. You don’t get to break the law just because you don’t like something. The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear - the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states and “solving simple poverty” isn’t one of them.
> 
> 3. You know what actually “solves simple poverty”? Getting up every day and going to work. Holding down a job. Being a productive member of society.
Click to expand...

yes, Government must solve the problems of our republic.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital and social inefficiency in our market based economy.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves that simple social dilemma in a market friendly manner.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand; how long that takes is the result of public policy.


How does the increased cost of labor create more demand without also reducing the number of candidates?   That defies all reasoning.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand; how long that takes is the result of public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the increased cost of labor create more demand without also reducing the number of candidates?   That defies all reasoning.
Click to expand...

in the short run, intermediate run, or long run?  it has to reach equilibrium, at some point.  at that point; higher paid labor will create more in demand.  and, taxes from that higher price point will be paid the whole time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only in right wing fantasy, are they moral enough to resort to True capitalism.  We Have Government, and Government costs.


What does “true capitalism” have to do with “we have government”?!? Capitalism does not mean the absence of capitalism, chief.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We Have Government, and Government costs.


You know what costs a LOT less? Constitutional government. Government doesn’t exist to provide you or to eliminate poverty. Sorry snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> yes, Government *must* *solve* the *problems* of our republic.


What?!? Says _who_?!? That’s not why government exists. It is such a shame that you don’t even know why we have government.

Government is *not* in the “problem solving” businesss, goofball.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is general; it says so.


Yes it is. And it applies to the 18 enumerated powers only. The U.S. Constitution says so. The 10th Amendment says so. And the founders who wrote the document said so.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy, are they moral enough to resort to True capitalism.  We Have Government, and Government costs.
> 
> 
> 
> What does “true capitalism” have to do with “we have government”?!? Capitalism does not mean the absence of capitalism, chief.
Click to expand...

true capitalism means the absence of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We Have Government, and Government costs.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what costs a LOT less? Constitutional government. Government doesn’t exist to provide you or to eliminate poverty. Sorry snowflake.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  The power to provide for the general welfare is general, unlike the common power for the common defense, not common offense or general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, Government *must* *solve* the *problems* of our republic.
> 
> 
> 
> What?!? Says _who_?!? That’s not why government exists. It is such a shame that you don’t even know why we have government.
> 
> Government is *not* in the “problem solving” businesss, goofball.
Click to expand...

says the People who allegedly want a problem solved with a wall. 

only the right wing, never gets it.

any more problems the right wing doesn't want to pay for?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general; it says so.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. And it applies to the 18 enumerated powers only. The U.S. Constitution says so. The 10th Amendment says so. And the founders who wrote the document said so.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say so in the federal doctrine, only the Republican doctrine.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand;


In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
QUOTE]Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*[/QUOTE]
Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story. 

UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> says the People who allegedly want a problem solved with a wall.


Yeah. Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. So is immigration.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> any more problems the right wing doesn't want to pay for?


Yes! Anything that is *not* constitutional (like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.).

Taxes are paid for government *services*. What service do I receive when my money is taken from me and given to welfare recipients? _Oops_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour would solve capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency.


1. Capitalism has no “natural rate of inefficiency”. None.

2. Paying people not to work, doesn’t work.

3. If a $15 per hour minimum wage collapses economies (as I have already proven), what do you think a $14 an hour not working would do? Why would I go to work for $1 more when I can stay at home like you do for $1 less?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It doesn't say so in the federal doctrine, only the Republican doctrine.


It says so in the U.S. Constitution! And that’s all that matters, sparky!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves that simple social dilemma in a *market* *friendly* *manner*.


Clearly sparky here doesn’t understand the term “market friendly”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour would solve capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency.


Talk is cheap. It’s time to put your money where your mouth is. I’m going to provide you with a PO Box number. You will send me $560 per week ($14 x 40). I will use that money to purchase things I want. It is the “supply” you claim will send the economy soaring.

Only the left-wing advocates for policies they refuse to live under themselves.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand;
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
> QUOTE]Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
Click to expand...




> Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs


a flawed study?  a lower unemployment rate means labor should be able to find a second job to make up hours.  part-time employment is part-time.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> says the People who allegedly want a problem solved with a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. So is immigration.
Click to expand...

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy; we also have a Commerce Clause.  

And, providing for the general welfare excludes the general warfare and the common offense.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any more problems the right wing doesn't want to pay for?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Anything that is *not* constitutional (like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.).
> 
> Taxes are paid for government *services*. What service do I receive when my money is taken from me and given to welfare recipients? _Oops_.
Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare is a general power; end the drug war since it does nothing for the common defense.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves that simple social dilemma in a *market* *friendly* *manner*.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly sparky here doesn’t understand the term “market friendly”.
Click to expand...

it just takes money, my dear alleged Capitalist.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour would solve capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk is cheap. It’s time to put your money where your mouth is. I’m going to provide you with a PO Box number. You will send me $560 per week ($14 x 40). I will use that money to purchase things I want. It is the “supply” you claim will send the economy soaring.
> 
> Only the left-wing advocates for policies they refuse to live under themselves.
Click to expand...

sure; i just need a printing press at an official mint and to abolish the drug war to pay for it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a flawed study?


There is no way to “flaw” when it comes to reporting on people losing their jobs.


danielpalos said:


> a lower unemployment rate means labor should be able to find a second job to make up hours.  part-time employment is part-time.


Not at $15 per hour. Nobody is paying unskilled labor that kind of outrageous wage. Nobody. That’s why all of those jobs disappear.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> sure; i just need a printing press at an official mint and to abolish the drug war to pay for it.


But the “printing press” *wouldn’t* pay for your plan, my friend. The tax payer does. In other words, you and I. So you start (since you support it). I’ll PM you a P.O. Box, you make sure there is $560 in it _every_ week.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it just takes money, my dear alleged Capitalist.


No it doesn’t. The term “market friendly” means little or no regulations, low taxes, no union extortion, and no red tape.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy;


Which is exactly why the border wall will be a financial windfall for the United States!

Trump's Wall Costs $21 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148 Billion Yearly—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy;


P.S. - there is no “capitalist” government. If there were, government wouldn’t need to survive off of taxes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> end the drug war since it does nothing for the common defense.


I’m with ya, brother! Unfortunately Obama and the Dumbocrats refused to do so even when they had a supermajority. That was our chance.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> sure; i just need a printing press at an official mint


Ladies & Gentlemen,

  I give _you_....left-wing “economics”. They actually believe that government revenue comes from “the printing press mint”. Because they don’t hold jobs, they don’t have a concept of having the government confiscate 65% of what you earned.

Not only that, they have zero concept of deflation due to flooding the economy with money.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to “flaw” when it comes to reporting on people losing their jobs.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lower unemployment rate means labor should be able to find a second job to make up hours.  part-time employment is part-time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at $15 per hour. Nobody is paying unskilled labor that kind of outrageous wage. Nobody. That’s why all of those jobs disappear.
Click to expand...

Labor still needs to be accomplished simply Because, capitalists cannot do it all themselves to save on costs and increase profits.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services; it is the equivalent to subsidizing Capitalists with low wages.  Wages needs an institutional upward pressure in our First World economy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy;
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why the border wall will be a financial windfall for the United States!
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148 Billion Yearly—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
Click to expand...

does nothing for the general welfare and is a drain on the budget.  we are not at war.  The Proof is, the right wing refuses to pay War Time tax rates under our form of Capitalism, for that capital receipt.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy;
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. - there is no “capitalist” government. If there were, government wouldn’t need to survive off of taxes.
Click to expand...

we have a Commerce Clause; the general welfare clause has a solution that is market friendly. 

we should be generating revenue from foreign nationals in the US, and be providing them with a federal id.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> end the drug war since it does nothing for the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m with ya, brother! Unfortunately Obama and the Dumbocrats refused to do so even when they had a supermajority. That was our chance.
Click to expand...

tax cut economics and no drug war clause in the right wing fantasy doctrine.  what more do you need?  a federalist, to help out.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure; i just need a printing press at an official mint
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen,
> 
> I give _you_....left-wing “economics”. They actually believe that government revenue comes from “the printing press mint”. Because they don’t hold jobs, they don’t have a concept of having the government confiscate 65% of what you earned.
> 
> Not only that, they have zero concept of deflation due to flooding the economy with money.
Click to expand...

more right wing propaganda; 

qe already happened.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Labor still need to be accomplished simply Because, *capitalists cannot do it all themselves* to save on costs and increase profits.


Yes they can. They either automate or they shut down the business. Seattle has already proven that. Oakland has already proven that. Your fantasyland ideology doesn't trump reality.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, they have zero concept of deflation due to flooding the economy with money.
> 
> 
> 
> more right wing propaganda;
> qe already happened.
Click to expand...

As did deflation, dumb ass. What you call "right-wing propaganda", other people refer to as basic economics.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> end the drug war since it does nothing for the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m with ya, brother! Unfortunately Obama and the Dumbocrats refused to do so even when they had a supermajority. That was our chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tax cut economics and no drug war clause in the right wing fantasy doctrine.  what more do you need?  a federalist, to help out.
Click to expand...

Why are you changing the topic? You wanted the end of the drug war. Obama and the Dumbocrats had a supermajority. They failed to act. It's on _you_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy;
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why the border wall will be a financial windfall for the United States!
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148 Billion Yearly—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does nothing for the general welfare and is a drain on the budget.
Click to expand...

1. It doesn't need to do anything for the "General Welfare". You latched onto that phrase like a dog with a bone (  ). The federal government is responsible for both defense and immigration. The wall covers both.

2. It does _everything_ for the budget. It saves the American tax payer $127 billion per year (minimum). Over *$1* *trillion* every 8 years.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor still need to be accomplished simply Because, *capitalists cannot do it all themselves* to save on costs and increase profits.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they can. They either automate or they shut down the business. Seattle has already proven that. Oakland has already proven that. Your fantasyland ideology doesn't trump reality.
Click to expand...

lol.  special pleading is all the right wing does.  We want to lose low wage jobs that have to be subsidized, anyway.  It is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a more cost effective use of that social safety net.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only that, they have zero concept of deflation due to flooding the economy with money.
> 
> 
> 
> more right wing propaganda;
> qe already happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As did deflation, dumb ass. What you call "right-wing propaganda", other people refer to as basic economics.
Click to expand...

higher paid labor makes more, and pay more in taxes and create more in demand.  what capital concept.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy;
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why the border wall will be a financial windfall for the United States!
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148 Billion Yearly—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does nothing for the general welfare and is a drain on the budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. It doesn't need to do anything for the "General Welfare". You latched onto that phrase like a dog with a bone (  ). The federal government is responsible for both defense and immigration. The wall covers both.
> 
> 2. It does _everything_ for the budget. It saves the American tax payer $127 billion per year (minimum). Over *$1* *trillion* every 8 years.
Click to expand...

there is no common offense or general warfare clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *We* *want* *to* *lose* low wage *jobs* that have to be subsidized, *anyway*.


And that’s exactly what your failed left-wing policies do! They lose jobs. That’s why unemployment skyrockets wherever you people are in charge.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a more cost effective use of that social safety net.


Abiding by the constitution and doing *neither* is exponentially even more cost effective!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> higher paid labor makes more, and pay more in taxes and create more in demand.  what capital concept.


Higher paid labor costs a business more. Unless that labor can offset the cost by bringing in more to the company than they cost the company, they are not retained.

Unemployed people bring in less ($0), pay less in taxes ($0), and drastically reduce demand for products and services ($0).

This is basic econmics and basic business principles. Two things you are completely clueless about.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We* *want* *to* *lose* low wage *jobs* that have to be subsidized, *anyway*.
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s exactly what your failed left-wing policies do! They lose jobs. That’s why unemployment skyrockets wherever you people are in charge.
Click to expand...

so what; they are low wage jobs.  only the right wing, Never gets it.  

we want the People to Migrate toward these jobs:

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a more cost effective use of that social safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by the constitution and doing *neither* is exponentially even more cost effective!
Click to expand...

simply appealing to ignorance?  care to explain how that would happen in practical terms.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor makes more, and pay more in taxes and create more in demand.  what capital concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor costs a business more. Unless that labor can offset the cost by bringing in more to the company than they cost the company, they are not retained.
> 
> Unemployed people bring in less ($0), pay less in taxes ($0), and drastically reduce demand for products and services ($0).
> 
> This is basic econmics and basic business principles. Two things you are completely clueless about.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford proved Good capitalist can, Bad capitalists whine about Labor costs in our First World economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We* *want* *to* *lose* low wage *jobs* that have to be subsidized, *anyway*.
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s exactly what your failed left-wing policies do! They lose jobs. That’s why unemployment skyrockets wherever you people are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; they are low wage jobs.
Click to expand...

And left wonders why their policies destroy jobs and increase the unemployment numbers (not to mention causing prices to skyrocket).

Low wage jobs are better than NO wage jobs. And...low wage jobs create low cost products and services. This is basic economics. Take a night class at your local community college or something. Sheesh.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a more cost effective use of that social safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by the constitution and doing *neither* is exponentially even more cost effective!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> care to explain how that would happen in practical terms.
Click to expand...

Why, yes! Yes I would. In practical terms, we would simply do what we did before the idiot dictator FDR assumed power. We would keep the federal government out of it and allow charity to handle it. And everything would be exponentially better.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We* *want* *to* *lose* low wage *jobs* that have to be subsidized, *anyway*.
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s exactly what your failed left-wing policies do! They lose jobs. That’s why unemployment skyrockets wherever you people are in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; they are low wage jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And left wonders why their policies destroy jobs and increase the unemployment numbers (not to mention causing prices to skyrocket).
> 
> Low wage jobs are better than NO wage jobs. And...low wage jobs create low cost products and services. This is basic economics. Take a night class at your local community college or something. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.  unemployment compensation is better for Labor.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a more cost effective use of that social safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by the constitution and doing *neither* is exponentially even more cost effective!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> care to explain how that would happen in practical terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, yes! Yes I would. In practical terms, we would simply do what we did before the idiot dictator FDR assumed power. We would keep the federal government out of it and allow charity to handle it. And everything would be exponentially better.
Click to expand...

lol.  in other words, nothing but political rhetoric.  

Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> unemployment compensation is better for Labor.


No. It isn't. At all. Paying people not to work, *doesn't* work. It never has. It never will. If it did, you would be sending $560 to my P.O. Box right now. But you're not. Because you're full of shit.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


Because paying people not to work, *doesn't* work.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


Because that idiotic communist ideology is what led to us being *$21 trillion* in *debt*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


Because the federal government has absolutely no authority to take my money and give it to people not to work. Taxes exist for government services. I receive no services from the parasite getting paid not to work.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


Because if that nonsense actually worked, you wouldn't sit on a site begging people to vote for government to do it. You would start a consortium of private left-wing citizens who all paid into a fund in case any of you had a low-paying job. But you don't. Because you tools know it won't work.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> unemployment compensation is better for Labor.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It isn't. At all. Paying people not to work, *doesn't* work. It never has. It never will. If it did, you would be sending $560 to my P.O. Box right now. But you're not. Because you're full of shit.
Click to expand...

why do you care?  it covers the alternative cost of social services; compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and complements capital based transactions and market friendliness.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> Because paying people not to work, *doesn't* work.
Click to expand...

It must work under any form of capitalism to ensure full employment of capital resources, because higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is an Institutional upward pressure on wages.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> Because paying people not to work, *doesn't* work.
Click to expand...

Yes, it must work under Any form of capitalism.  Capital based morality takes care of the rest in a market friendly manner under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that idiotic communist ideology is what led to us being *$21 trillion* in *debt*.
Click to expand...

the right wing only alleges to subscribe to capitalism.  socialism on a national basis is all they know.

providing for the general welfare must be market friendly to provide for the general prosperity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the federal government has absolutely no authority to take my money and give it to people not to work. Taxes exist for government services. I receive no services from the parasite getting paid not to work.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  That is why we delegate the power to tax, to Congress; to solve the problems of our Republic.  Providing for the general welfare and common defense, does that.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we be worse off with the social safety net of being able to collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that nonsense actually worked, you wouldn't sit on a site begging people to vote for government to do it. You would start a consortium of private left-wing citizens who all paid into a fund in case any of you had a low-paying job. But you don't. Because you tools know it won't work.
Click to expand...

Stabilizing that market segment helps local and State governments generate revenue on a more consistent basis; higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.  Unemployment compensation and welfare take care of the rest.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> why do you care?


1. I care about my country
2. My children’s future depends on it
3. It is illegal/unlawful
4. It doesn’t work
5. It significantly impacts me in a very negative way


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is an Institutional upward *pressure* *on* *wages*.


Exactly. And what does pressure do? It causes things to burst. Businesses cannot handle that unnecessary “pressure”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It must work under any form of capitalism to ensure full employment of capital resources,


But it doesn’t. And that is the bottom line.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capital based *morality* takes care of the rest in a market friendly manner under our form of Capitalism.


Capitalism is an economic system. It is neither moral nor amoral. Only _people_ can be moral.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capital based *morality* takes care of the rest in a market friendly manner under our form of Capitalism.


You cannot make your desire to steal from others “moral”, no matter how hard you try.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the right wing only alleges to subscribe to capitalism.  socialism on a national basis is all they know.


So it is now your position that refusing to permit socialism _is_ “socialism”? 


danielpalos said:


> *providing* for the general welfare must be market friendly to *provide* for the general prosperity.


Now _that_ is socialism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it does.  That is why we delegate the power to tax, to Congress; to solve the problems of our Republic.  Providing for the general welfare and common defense, does that.


No, snowflake. We don’t grant the power to tax go “solve the problems of our republic”. We grant the power to tax in order for the government to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. Nothing less. Nothing more.

Furthermore, government doesn’t even exist to “solve problems”. That is astounding ignorance. Unimaginable ignorance. You’re clearly a Paid Russian Troll as no American could be so ignorant about their own government.


----------



## P@triot

Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Stabilizing that market segment helps local and State governments generate revenue on a more consistent basis;


1. Nothing is “unstable”. Therefore, nothing needs to be “stabilized”
2. Even if the market were unstable, it is *not* the job of government to “stabilize” it.


danielpalos said:


> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


I’ve already proven that artificially inflating the wages of labor results in lower wage and no wage jobs. Which creates less in taxes and less in market demand. Game over.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I care about my country
> 2. My children’s future depends on it
> 3. It is illegal/unlawful
> 4. It doesn’t work
> 5. It significantly impacts me in a very negative way
Click to expand...

providing for the general welfare is a general power; solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is within the scope of the general welfare clause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is an Institutional upward *pressure* *on* *wages*.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And what does pressure do? It causes things to burst. Businesses cannot handle that unnecessary “pressure”.
Click to expand...

inflation happens, right wingers; the left didn't invent it.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must work under any form of capitalism to ensure full employment of capital resources,
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn’t. And that is the bottom line.
Click to expand...

lol.  i merely gainsay your contention.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital based *morality* takes care of the rest in a market friendly manner under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system. It is neither moral nor amoral. Only _people_ can be moral.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about morals, either.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital based *morality* takes care of the rest in a market friendly manner under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot make your desire to steal from others “moral”, no matter how hard you try.
> 
> View attachment 222062
Click to expand...

solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing only alleges to subscribe to capitalism.  socialism on a national basis is all they know.
> 
> 
> 
> So it is now your position that refusing to permit socialism _is_ “socialism”?
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *providing* for the general welfare must be market friendly to *provide* for the general prosperity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now _that_ is socialism.
Click to expand...

providing for the general welfare is a general power.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That is why we delegate the power to tax, to Congress; to solve the problems of our Republic.  Providing for the general welfare and common defense, does that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, snowflake. We don’t grant the power to tax go “solve the problems of our republic”. We grant the power to tax in order for the government to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. Nothing less. Nothing more.
> 
> Furthermore, government doesn’t even exist to “solve problems”. That is astounding ignorance. Unimaginable ignorance. You’re clearly a Paid Russian Troll as no American could be so ignorant about their own government.
Click to expand...

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; we have a general welfare clause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?


Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?

the right wing, whines about our "punishment of the Expense of Government".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stabilizing that market segment helps local and State governments generate revenue on a more consistent basis;
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing is “unstable”. Therefore, nothing needs to be “stabilized”
> 2. Even if the market were unstable, it is *not* the job of government to “stabilize” it.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve already proven that artificially inflating the wages of labor results in lower wage and no wage jobs. Which creates less in taxes and less in market demand. Game over.
Click to expand...

don't forget about unemployment compensation to solve for this dilemma.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> [providing for the general welfare is a general power; solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is within the scope of the general welfare clause.


Providing for the “general welfare” is a specific power. Specific to the 18 enumerated powers. Sorry, not sorry.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
Click to expand...

Nope. As Ronald Reagan said, “if none among us are fit to rule ourselves, who among us is fit to rule others”?

If we’re not “moral enough” to “obey ten simple commandments from God”, how could government be “moral enough”? Government is merely made up of the same people who you just claimed lacked the morality to follow them simple commandments.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
Click to expand...

Nope. Our founders had the foresight to explain to the generations why they were implementing government (after fleeing from tyranny). It can be found in the Declaration of Independence:


> “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”


Government was implemented to secure your rights. That’s it. Nothing more. It doesn’t exist to feed you. It doesn’t exist to provide you with healthcare. It exists to secure your rights. To ensure that nobody takes your rights away from you.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stabilizing that market segment helps local and State governments generate revenue on a more consistent basis;
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing is “unstable”. Therefore, nothing needs to be “stabilized”
> 2. Even if the market were unstable, it is *not* the job of government to “stabilize” it.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve already proven that artificially inflating the wages of labor results in lower wage and no wage jobs. Which creates less in taxes and less in market demand. Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't forget about unemployment compensation to solve for this dilemma.
Click to expand...

Don’t forget that you refuse to pay me the same “unemployment compensation” that you demand others pay you. Don’t forget that that is the real “dilemma”. Don’t forget that we’re $21 trillion in debt. Don’t forget that what you propose is entirely illegal (unconstitutional). Don’t forget that paying people not to work, doesn’t work.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.


Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must work under any form of capitalism to ensure full employment of capital resources,
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn’t. And that is the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i merely gainsay your contention.
Click to expand...

You merely refuse to accept reality.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> [providing for the general welfare is a general power; solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is within the scope of the general welfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the “general welfare” is a specific power. Specific to the 18 enumerated powers. Sorry, not sorry.
Click to expand...

lol.  That is the republican doctrine, not the federal doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. As Ronald Reagan said, “if none among us are fit to rule ourselves, who among us is fit to rule others”?
> 
> If we’re not “moral enough” to “obey ten simple commandments from God”, how could government be “moral enough”? Government is merely made up of the same people who you just claimed lacked the morality to follow them simple commandments.
Click to expand...

We have elections for the socialism of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Our founders had the foresight to explain to the generations why they were implementing government (after fleeing from tyranny). It can be found in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 
> 
> “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government was implemented to secure your rights. That’s it. Nothing more. It doesn’t exist to feed you. It doesn’t exist to provide you with healthcare. It exists to secure your rights. To ensure that nobody takes your rights away from you.
Click to expand...

Yet, the only way we have is the Socialism of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stabilizing that market segment helps local and State governments generate revenue on a more consistent basis;
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing is “unstable”. Therefore, nothing needs to be “stabilized”
> 2. Even if the market were unstable, it is *not* the job of government to “stabilize” it.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve already proven that artificially inflating the wages of labor results in lower wage and no wage jobs. Which creates less in taxes and less in market demand. Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't forget about unemployment compensation to solve for this dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t forget that you refuse to pay me the same “unemployment compensation” that you demand others pay you. Don’t forget that that is the real “dilemma”. Don’t forget that we’re $21 trillion in debt. Don’t forget that what you propose is entirely illegal (unconstitutional). Don’t forget that paying people not to work, doesn’t work.
Click to expand...

We have unemployment compensation infrastructure in our Republic.  It should be used in the most cost effective manner available.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> lol.  That is the republican doctrine, not the federal doctrine.


LOL. That is the doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, sparky. And that is all that matters. Game over.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must work under any form of capitalism to ensure full employment of capital resources,
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn’t. And that is the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i merely gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely refuse to accept reality.
Click to expand...

you only have, right wing fantasy, not reality.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. As Ronald Reagan said, “if none among us are fit to rule ourselves, who among us is fit to rule others”?
> 
> If we’re not “moral enough” to “obey ten simple commandments from God”, how could government be “moral enough”? Government is merely made up of the same people who you just claimed lacked the morality to follow them simple commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have elections for the socialism of Government.
Click to expand...

As always, you didn't answer the question. If people are not "moral enough" to "follow ten simple commandments" how can they be moral enough to control government and control the lives of others? _Oops_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  That is the republican doctrine, not the federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. That is the doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, sparky. And that is all that matters. Game over.
Click to expand...

maybe to You.  You can't seem to end the drug war.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have elections for the socialism of Government.


We have a U.S. Constitution which dictates what those elected can and cannot do. Game over.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. As Ronald Reagan said, “if none among us are fit to rule ourselves, who among us is fit to rule others”?
> 
> If we’re not “moral enough” to “obey ten simple commandments from God”, how could government be “moral enough”? Government is merely made up of the same people who you just claimed lacked the morality to follow them simple commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have elections for the socialism of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always, you didn't answer the question. If people are not "moral enough" to "follow ten simple commandments" how can they be moral enough to control government and control the lives of others? _Oops_.
Click to expand...

we have Elections and elect our representatives to limited Government.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You can't seem to end the drug war.


The Dumbocrats had a super-majority. They chose not to. As always, they let the American people down.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have elections for the socialism of Government.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a U.S. Constitution which dictates what those elected can and cannot do. Game over.
Click to expand...

Socialism at its finest.  Only the right wing doesn't know how to use it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. As Ronald Reagan said, “if none among us are fit to rule ourselves, who among us is fit to rule others”?
> 
> If we’re not “moral enough” to “obey ten simple commandments from God”, how could government be “moral enough”? Government is merely made up of the same people who you just claimed lacked the morality to follow them simple commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have elections for the socialism of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always, you didn't answer the question. If people are not "moral enough" to "follow ten simple commandments" how can they be moral enough to control government and control the lives of others? _Oops_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have Elections and elect our representatives to limited Government.
Click to expand...

As always, you didn't answer the question. If people are not "moral enough" to "follow ten simple commandments" how can they be moral enough to control government and control the lives of others? _Oops_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have elections for the socialism of Government.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a U.S. Constitution which dictates what those elected can and cannot do. Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism at its finest.  Only the right wing doesn't know how to use it.
Click to expand...

The right-wing _chooses_ not to use socialism. It's a failed and idiotic concept embraced only by those who are ignorant.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't seem to end the drug war.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dumbocrats had a super-majority. They chose not to. As always, they let the American people down.
Click to expand...

The left should try harder, now.

Metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. As Ronald Reagan said, “if none among us are fit to rule ourselves, who among us is fit to rule others”?
> 
> If we’re not “moral enough” to “obey ten simple commandments from God”, how could government be “moral enough”? Government is merely made up of the same people who you just claimed lacked the morality to follow them simple commandments.
Click to expand...

It is why we have the Expense of Government.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yet, the only way we have is the Socialism of Government.


Proof that DP is a PRT (Paid Russian Troll). His broken English and ignorance of the United States are dead giveaways.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s see if we can simplify this. Why does government exist, danielpalos?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we are not moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from a God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Our founders had the foresight to explain to the generations why they were implementing government (after fleeing from tyranny). It can be found in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 
> 
> “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.——*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government was implemented to secure your rights. That’s it. Nothing more. It doesn’t exist to feed you. It doesn’t exist to provide you with healthcare. It exists to secure your rights. To ensure that nobody takes your rights away from you.
Click to expand...

The social power of socialism, at work.  Government costs money.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

I know it is. I just told you that. You don't have to reaffirm what I am teaching you. Taxes exist to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office, the post office, etc. The American people receive a direct service in return for their taxes.

The American people do *not* receive a service for welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stabilizing that market segment helps local and State governments generate revenue on a more consistent basis;
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing is “unstable”. Therefore, nothing needs to be “stabilized”
> 2. Even if the market were unstable, it is *not* the job of government to “stabilize” it.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve already proven that artificially inflating the wages of labor results in lower wage and no wage jobs. Which creates less in taxes and less in market demand. Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't forget about unemployment compensation to solve for this dilemma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t forget that you refuse to pay me the same “unemployment compensation” that you demand others pay you. Don’t forget that that is the real “dilemma”. Don’t forget that we’re $21 trillion in debt. Don’t forget that what you propose is entirely illegal (unconstitutional). Don’t forget that paying people not to work, doesn’t work.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle of to improve social services.  A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our economy is what we can expect.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The social power of socialism, at work.


The U.S. Constitution doesn't authorize socialism, sparky. If you want that, you need the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution. If you can't get those votes, respect the fact that *We the People* have spoken...


danielpalos said:


> Government costs money.


Yes it does. And in return for that money, the American people receive a service.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  the common defense and general welfare cover all civil contingencies.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must work under any form of capitalism to ensure full employment of capital resources,
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn’t. And that is the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i merely gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely refuse to accept reality.
Click to expand...

You have only right wing fantasy, not reality.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle *of to* improve social services.


"Of to"? 

Dude...Vladimir is going to be _very_ disappointed in your performance today. You do know what he does to people who disappoint him, don't you?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it is. I just told you that. You don't have to reaffirm what I am teaching you. Taxes exist to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office, the post office, etc. The American people receive a direct service in return for their taxes.
> 
> The American people do *not* receive a service for welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc.
Click to expand...

I am a federalist, I understand the federal doctrine; unlike the right wing.

Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via market friendly means is a general dilemma under the comprehension of the general welfare clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle of to improve social services.


Social services are improved by turning it back over to private charity - where it belongs. History has proven that. Just like it has proven that every claim you have made it complete and total bullshit.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am a federalist


No. No, you're an idiot. And a PRT (Paid Russian Troll).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The social power of socialism, at work.
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Constitution doesn't authorize socialism, sparky. If you want that, you need the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution. If you can't get those votes, respect the fact that *We the People* have spoken...
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government costs money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it does. And in return for that money, the American people receive a service.
Click to expand...

Socialism starts with a social Contract.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle *of to* improve social services.
> 
> 
> 
> "Of to"?
> 
> Dude...Vladimir is going to be _very_ disappointed in your performance today. You do know what he does to people who disappoint him, don't you?
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle to improve social services.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle of to improve social services.
> 
> 
> 
> Social services are improved by turning it back over to private charity - where it belongs. History has proven that. Just like it has proven that every claim you have made it complete and total bullshit.
Click to expand...

private charity only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty in our Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a federalist
> 
> 
> 
> No. No, you're an idiot. And a PRT (Paid Russian Troll).
Click to expand...

you don't know what you are talking about, right winger; conspiracy or coincidence?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via market friendly means is a general dilemma under the comprehension of the general welfare clause.


Snowflake, the federal government has no authority to "solve" unemployment. That is the job of the unemployed. If they actually work and make themselves marketable, they wouldn't be unemployed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> private charity only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty in our Republic.


It covers _everything_ it _should_ cover and *nothing* it shouldn't. That's the beauty of it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> you don't know what you are talking about, right winger; conspiracy or coincidence?


Snowflake, your atrocious grammar and profound ignorance of U.S. government gave you away. You didn't even know why our founders instituted government.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You have only right wing fantasy, not reality.


Says the PRT (Paid Russian Troll) who ignores the reality of the failed experiments in Seattle and Oakland, in favor of his disturbed left-wing fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  the common defense and general welfare cover all civil contingencies.
Click to expand...

Defense is protecting against foreign and domestic threats of a U.S. invasion, takeover, etc. It has nothing to do with socialism no matter how hard you try to make it that way. And the general welfare clause explicitly applies to the 18 enumerated powers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Socialism starts with a social Contract.


Thank goodness the American people *never* signed _that_ contract. That would suck. Just like Paid Russian Trolls.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle to improve social services.


No, no. Unemployment compensation is an idiotic vehicle to collapse an economy. Paying people not to work doesn't work.

And even if it did work, we're $21 trillion in debt. We couldn't afford it anyway. These are basic realities that you're incapable of comprehending. Now go read your emails from Vladimir and let the adults talk, ok?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via market friendly means is a general dilemma under the comprehension of the general welfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake, the federal government has no authority to "solve" unemployment. That is the job of the unemployed. If they actually work and make themselves marketable, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is as long as it promotes and provides for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> private charity only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> It covers _everything_ it _should_ cover and *nothing* it shouldn't. That's the beauty of it.
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy does the right wing not whine about the cost of social services.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for problems is why the power to tax exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....um....no...it’s *not*. At all. The power of tax exists to cover the costs of government. Things like the patent office. The post office. The Supreme Court. Etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  the common defense and general welfare cover all civil contingencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense is protecting against foreign and domestic threats of a U.S. invasion, takeover, etc. It has nothing to do with socialism no matter how hard you try to make it that way. And the general welfare clause explicitly applies to the 18 enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

it has to do with the common defense; there is no enumerated common offense or general warfare powers delegated to Congress.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism starts with a social Contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness the American people *never* signed _that_ contract. That would suck. Just like Paid Russian Trolls.
Click to expand...

Only infidels, protestants, and renegades should complain about the delegated power to Tax.  

Lousy Christians?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle to improve social services.
> 
> 
> 
> No, no. Unemployment compensation is an idiotic vehicle to collapse an economy. Paying people not to work doesn't work.
> 
> And even if it did work, we're $21 trillion in debt. We couldn't afford it anyway. These are basic realities that you're incapable of comprehending. Now go read your emails from Vladimir and let the adults talk, ok?
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation could be harnessed as a means of production to the extent, higher paid labor pay more in taxes and create more in demand; a positive multiplier effect means we will be generating revenue and circulating money in our institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> it has to do with the common defense; there is no enumerated common offense or general warfare powers delegated to Congress.


There's also no enumerated power of specific welfare. It's only general welfare.

So no federal government program can benefit an individual specifically. So social services are unconstitutional.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle to improve social services.
> 
> 
> 
> No, no. Unemployment compensation is an idiotic vehicle to collapse an economy. Paying people not to work doesn't work.
> 
> And even if it did work, we're $21 trillion in debt. We couldn't afford it anyway. These are basic realities that you're incapable of comprehending. Now go read your emails from Vladimir and let the adults talk, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation could be harnessed as a means of production to the extent, higher paid labor pay more in taxes and create more in demand; a positive multiplier effect means we will be generating revenue and circulating money in our institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Will somebody please send Dan a basic economics book?


----------



## Thinker101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a capital vehicle to improve social services.
> 
> 
> 
> No, no. Unemployment compensation is an idiotic vehicle to collapse an economy. Paying people not to work doesn't work.
> 
> And even if it did work, we're $21 trillion in debt. We couldn't afford it anyway. These are basic realities that you're incapable of comprehending. Now go read your emails from Vladimir and let the adults talk, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation could be harnessed as a means of production to the extent, higher paid labor pay more in taxes and create more in demand; a positive multiplier effect means we will be generating revenue and circulating money in our institution of money based markets and form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will somebody please send Dan a basic economics book?
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with the common defense; there is no enumerated common offense or general warfare powers delegated to Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> There's also no enumerated power of specific welfare. It's only general welfare.
> 
> So no federal government program can benefit an individual specifically. So social services are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the general social problem for Labor.

The infrastructure already exists in our Republic; it is a more cost effective solution to simple poverty and more market friendly than Any form of means testing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The infrastructure already exists in our Republic; it is a more cost effective solution to simple poverty and more market friendly than Any form of means testing.


The idiotic socialism you are proposing doesn't require "infrastructure" genius. 

It requires money. Money that we don't have ($21 trillion in debt thanks to the ignorant socialism you want more of). You continue to illustrate that you are clueless, causeless, and careless.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The infrastructure already exists in our Republic; it is a more cost effective solution to simple poverty and more market friendly than Any form of means testing.
> 
> 
> 
> The idiotic socialism you are proposing doesn't require "infrastructure" genius.
> 
> It requires money. Money that we don't have ($21 trillion in debt thanks to the ignorant socialism you want more of). You continue to illustrate that you are clueless, causeless, and careless.
Click to expand...

It already exists, genius.  We merely need to make better capital use of it, Because we allege to subscribe to Capitalism.  A more cost effective use of capital resources.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It already exists, genius.  We merely need to make better capital use of it, Because we allege to subscribe to Capitalism.  A more cost effective use of capital resources.


It doesn’t exist. We do not currently pay people $14 an hour not to work.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It already exists, genius.  We merely need to make better capital use of it, Because we allege to subscribe to Capitalism.  A more cost effective use of capital resources.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t exist. We do not currently pay people $14 an hour not to work.
Click to expand...

a simple, "mathematical engineering" problem. The infrastructure is already in place in our Union.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It already exists, genius.  We merely need to make better capital use of it, Because we allege to subscribe to Capitalism.  A more cost effective use of capital resources.


It’s comical (albeit idiotic) how you attempt to sell _your_ view of more efficient socialism as “capitalism”. You’re not fooling anybody (except yourself).

Capitalism *doesn’t* pay people not to work, nitwit. Capitalism is private ownership. Government handing out money is the polar opposite of capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a simple, "mathematical engineering" problem.


The only thing “simple” is your intellect.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It already exists, genius.  We merely need to make better capital use of it, Because we allege to subscribe to Capitalism.  A more cost effective use of capital resources.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s comical (albeit idiotic) how you attempt to sell _your_ view of more efficient socialism as “capitalism”. You’re not fooling anybody (except yourself).
> 
> Capitalism *doesn’t* pay people not to work, nitwit. Capitalism is private ownership. Government handing out money is the polar opposite of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Under Capitalism only capital has to work; it is voluntary for everyone else.  That is the reason for it.  Only the right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage higher paid labor to pay more in taxes and create more in demand.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a simple, "mathematical engineering" problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing “simple” is your intellect.
Click to expand...

nope; mathematical engineers can handle this portion of it.  not my simple intellect; a mathematically engineered solution.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only the right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage *higher* *paid* *labor* to pay more in taxes and create more in demand.


As I have already *proven* from the Seattle Times article, artificially inflated labor costs results in reduced hours and increased unemployment. All of which results in less purchasing power and less tax revenues.

You’re nonsense is the perfect illustration of why left-wing policies collapse economies!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a simple, "mathematical engineering" problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing “simple” is your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope; mathematical engineers can handle this portion of it.  not my simple intellect; a mathematically engineered solution.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to “handle”. You claim you want capitalism. Well, government controlling business (including what they pay labor) is *not* capitalism. You’ve been caught in your own lie, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Under Capitalism only capital has to work; it is voluntary for everyone else.


That’s so idiotic, it’s shameful. Capital is an inanimate object. It is completely and totally incapable of work. Only people can work, stupid.

Please. For the love of God. Take a basic economics course at your local Russian community college. You’re embarrassing the hell out of yourself right now.


----------



## Rogo

P@triot said:


> There is nothing to “handle”. You claim you want capitalism. Well, government controlling business (including what they pay labor) is *not* capitalism. You’ve been caught in your own lie, snowflake.



Social programs and governmental regulation of businesses are characteristic of social democracy, which is capitalist by nature. In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage *higher* *paid* *labor* to pay more in taxes and create more in demand.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already *proven* from the Seattle Times article, artificially inflated labor costs results in reduced hours and increased unemployment. All of which results in less purchasing power and less tax revenues.
> 
> You’re nonsense is the perfect illustration of why left-wing policies collapse economies!
Click to expand...

in the short run; that is what unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is for; fourteen dollars an hour make your right wing special pleading, a mere canard. 

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment helps ensure liquidity in our our markets.  That engenders a positive multiplier effect as the ready reserve labor force, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


----------



## P@triot

Rogo said:


> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.


Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment helps ensure liquidity in our our markets.  That engenders a positive multiplier effect as ready reserve labor force, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


Awe....look. How precious. The 12-year old Paid Russian Troll figured out how to Google Karl Marx and then copy and paste _his_ content into the responses.


----------



## Rogo

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
Click to expand...


Tell me, what is a "pure" capitalist society?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage *higher* *paid* *labor* to pay more in taxes and create more in demand.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already *proven* from the Seattle Times article, artificially inflated labor costs results in reduced hours and increased unemployment. All of which results in less purchasing power and less tax revenues.
> 
> You’re nonsense is the perfect illustration of why left-wing policies collapse economies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in* *the* *short* *run*; that is what unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is for; fourteen dollars an hour make your right wing special pleading, a mere canard.
Click to expand...

Ok...so now you just admitted that it lowers purchasing power and taxes (at the very least “in the short run”). So with lower tax revenues due to your socialist idiocy, you then want to pay all of those newly unemployed people $14 per hour.

More government costs. Less government revenue.

Doesn’t take a “mathematical engineer” to figure out those numbers cause an explosion in the deficit (when we already have $21 trillion in national debt). And that doesn’t even account for your astounding ignorance of believing that paying people “X” amount of money not to work and then taking “Y” amount back from them results in a huge *net* *loss* in tax revenue.

If I’m the government and I pay you $100 a week and take back $30 a week in taxes, I’m not up $30. I’m down $70, you mental midget.


----------



## P@triot

Rogo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, what is a "pure" capitalist society?
Click to expand...

I just did. The United States circa 1776 to 1935 (or so).


----------



## Rogo

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, what is a "pure" capitalist society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did. The United States circa 1776 to 1935 (or so).
Click to expand...


I didn't ask for an example. I asked what it is.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
Click to expand...

true capitalism only exists in the less developed world. 

In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.


----------



## Rogo

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true capitalism only exists in the less developed world.
> 
> In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.
Click to expand...


What exactly do you think socialism is?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Capitalism only capital has to work; it is voluntary for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s so idiotic, it’s shameful. Capital is an inanimate object. It is completely and totally incapable of work. Only people can work, stupid.
> 
> Please. For the love of God. Take a basic economics course at your local Russian community college. You’re embarrassing the hell out of yourself right now.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions not forced labor for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment helps ensure liquidity in our our markets.  That engenders a positive multiplier effect as ready reserve labor force, pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> 
> 
> Awe....look. How precious. The 12-year old Paid Russian Troll figured out how to Google Karl Marx and then copy and paste _his_ content into the responses.
Click to expand...

It is about ensuring liquidity in our markets regardless of venture capital being ventured on a potentially for-profit basis.  Capitalists also may suffer from a natural rate failure.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage *higher* *paid* *labor* to pay more in taxes and create more in demand.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already *proven* from the Seattle Times article, artificially inflated labor costs results in reduced hours and increased unemployment. All of which results in less purchasing power and less tax revenues.
> 
> You’re nonsense is the perfect illustration of why left-wing policies collapse economies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in* *the* *short* *run*; that is what unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is for; fourteen dollars an hour make your right wing special pleading, a mere canard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...so now you just admitted that it lowers purchasing power and taxes (at the very least “in the short run”). So with lower tax revenues due to your socialist idiocy, you then want to pay all of those newly unemployed people $14 per hour.
> 
> More government costs. Less government revenue.
> 
> Doesn’t take a “mathematical engineer” to figure out those numbers cause an explosion in the deficit (when we already have $21 trillion in national debt). And that doesn’t even account for your astounding ignorance of believing that paying people “X” amount of money not to work and then taking “Y” amount back from them results in a huge *net* *loss* in tax revenue.
> 
> If I’m the government and I pay you $100 a week and take back $30 a week in taxes, I’m not up $30. I’m down $70, you mental midget.
Click to expand...

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment does that; it is profit motivated.


----------



## danielpalos

Rogo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true capitalism only exists in the less developed world.
> 
> In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think socialism is?
Click to expand...

Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.


----------



## Rogo

danielpalos said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true capitalism only exists in the less developed world.
> 
> In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
Click to expand...


What makes you think the government is socialism?

According to socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, socialism is a classless and stateless society where the workers collectively run and own the means of production—meaning there is no government. Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?


----------



## danielpalos

Rogo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true capitalism only exists in the less developed world.
> 
> In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think the government is socialism?
> 
> According to socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, socialism is a classless and stateless society where the workers collectively run and own the means of production—meaning there is no government. Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?
Click to expand...

The power to do any Thing, is socialism. Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, what is a "pure" capitalist society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did. The United States circa 1776 to 1935 (or so).
Click to expand...


Hahaha, actually the opposite is truth, you're very dumb, and should be treated as such.

The Founding Fathers weren't Capitalists, but they were White Supremacists.

I've made threads about the Founding Fathers, you haven't a clue.

Founding Fathers not Capitalists.

Founding Fathers like Arabs, Fascists rather than modern Republicans / Democrats.

Founding Fathers more like Hamas, or Israel?


----------



## Thinker101

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, what is a "pure" capitalist society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did. The United States circa 1776 to 1935 (or so).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha, actually the opposite is truth, you're very dumb, and should be treated as such.
> 
> The Founding Fathers weren't Capitalists, but they were White Supremacists.
> 
> I've made threads about the Founding Fathers, you haven't a clue.
> 
> Founding Fathers not Capitalists.
> 
> Founding Fathers like Arabs, Fascists rather than modern Republicans / Democrats.
> 
> Founding Fathers more like Hamas, or Israel?
Click to expand...



The Founding Fathers were white supremacists?


----------



## Rogo

danielpalos said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> 
> 
> true capitalism only exists in the less developed world.
> 
> In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think the government is socialism?
> 
> According to socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, socialism is a classless and stateless society where the workers collectively run and own the means of production—meaning there is no government. Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to do any Thing, is socialism. Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
Click to expand...


That doesn't answer my question. I agree that socialism allows for free association, but I don't understand how the existence of a government permits such an association to exist—or is even necessary in order for socialism to exist.

Also, what do you mean when you say "Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily"?


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, a "mixed economy" is necessary in order for capitalism to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no it’s not. We had a pure capitalist society from 1776 until 1935. All that did was take a newly founded nation and turn it into the world’s most elite superpower. Our growth since then has been clearly and undeniably stunted (thanks to idiotic left-wing socialism).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, what is a "pure" capitalist society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did. The United States circa 1776 to 1935 (or so).
Click to expand...


You definitely have a limited intellect if you believe the U.S.A was a pure from of Capitalism 1776 - 1935.

You seem to base that on taxation.

Contrary to your opinions, North Korea is the closest to a tax free country in the World, does that make them Capitalist dumb f*ck

Taxation in North Korea - Wikipedia


----------



## danielpalos

Rogo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> true capitalism only exists in the less developed world.
> 
> In the US, Capitalism died  in 1929; socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think socialism is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think the government is socialism?
> 
> According to socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, socialism is a classless and stateless society where the workers collectively run and own the means of production—meaning there is no government. Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to do any Thing, is socialism. Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. I agree that socialism allows for free association, but I don't understand how the existence of a government permits such an association to exist—or is even necessary in order for socialism to exist.
> 
> Also, what do you mean when you say "Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily"?
Click to expand...

That is capitalism; voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.   

Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalists also may suffer from a natural rate failure.


And thank God! You cannot eliminate failure. Stop with the idiotic socialist utopia. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Never will.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> You seem to base that on taxation.


Not at all. Not even a little. You seem to be ignorant. No. Wait. Scratch that. You confirmed it. You definitely are ignorant.

Taxes had nothing to do with my comment.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalists also may suffer from a natural rate failure.
> 
> 
> 
> And thank God! You cannot eliminate failure. Stop with the idiotic socialist utopia. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Never will.
Click to expand...

one step at a time. 

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner benefits everyone, including our Posterity.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner benefits everyone, including our Posterity.


You're a goddamn commie.  Die in a fire.


----------



## Rogo

danielpalos said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think socialism is?
> 
> 
> 
> Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think the government is socialism?
> 
> According to socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, socialism is a classless and stateless society where the workers collectively run and own the means of production—meaning there is no government. Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to do any Thing, is socialism. Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. I agree that socialism allows for free association, but I don't understand how the existence of a government permits such an association to exist—or is even necessary in order for socialism to exist.
> 
> Also, what do you mean when you say "Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is capitalism; voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
Click to expand...


What does that even mean? I'm sorry, but your responses are borderline incoherent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rogo said:


> What does that even mean? I'm sorry, but your responses are borderline incoherent.


I'll translate:

Commie commie commie.....commie.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to base that on taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not even a little. You seem to be ignorant. No. Wait. Scratch that. You confirmed it. You definitely are ignorant.
> 
> Taxes had nothing to do with my comment.
Click to expand...


Socialism is just a regulated, or command economy.

The U.S.A had Teddy Roosevelt in the 1900's trust-busting or breaking up corporations.

The laws in 19th century America while being state run, most states chose Socialistic regulations upon Corporations.

Unequal Protection: The Early Role of Corporations in America

Morris discovered that on the eve of his becoming chief justice of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, Edward G. Ryan said ominously in his 1873 address to the graduating class of the University of Wisconsin Law School,

[There] is looming up a new and dark power…the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power….The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine, which shall rule—wealth or man [sic]; which shall lead—money or intellect; who shall fill public stations—educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital….1

In researching nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations, Morris found that in Wisconsin, as in most other states at that time:


Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.2

Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legis- lature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).3

The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.4

The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.5

As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.6

State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.7

Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.8

Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.9

Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).10

Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.11

Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).12

Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13

Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14

State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.15


All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.16

Similar laws existed in most other states. It is important to understand that tens of thousands of entrepreneurs did business in the early colonies and continue to do so today without being incorporated—the proverbial butcher, baker, and candlestick maker.


----------



## Rogo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean? I'm sorry, but your responses are borderline incoherent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll translate:
> 
> Commie commie commie.....commie.
Click to expand...


You realize I'm a communist, right?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner benefits everyone, including our Posterity.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a goddamn commie.  Die in a fire.
Click to expand...

ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Rogo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is socialism.  The power to do any Thing, is socialism.  Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the government is socialism?
> 
> According to socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, socialism is a classless and stateless society where the workers collectively run and own the means of production—meaning there is no government. Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to do any Thing, is socialism. Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question. I agree that socialism allows for free association, but I don't understand how the existence of a government permits such an association to exist—or is even necessary in order for socialism to exist.
> 
> Also, what do you mean when you say "Capitalism has to accomplish it, voluntarily"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is capitalism; voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that even mean? I'm sorry, but your responses are borderline incoherent.
Click to expand...

Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13


 Astounding stupidity....even by your standards. That doesn’t even remotely have anything to do with their business. It doesn’t dictate what they produce, how much they produce, how they produce it, who they must sell to, etc. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with their business. Epic fail.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14


 Astounding stupidity....even by your standards. That doesn’t even remotely have anything to do with their business. It doesn’t dictate what they produce, how much they produce, how they produce it, who they must sell to, etc. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with their business. Epic fail.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.


Socialism is an economic system. Government is a political system. You are a very special kind of stupid.


----------



## xband

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system. Government is a political system. You are a very special kind of stupid.
Click to expand...


Socialism is a failed economic system just to put in my two cents worth.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> It is important to understand that tens of thousands of entrepreneurs did business in the early colonies and continue to do so today without being incorporated—the proverbial butcher, baker, and candlestick maker.


It is equally important to understand that you didn’t have a single bullet point that even remotely approached “socialism” _or_ impacted how a business ran their business.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astounding stupidity....even by your standards. That doesn’t even remotely have anything to do with their business. It doesn’t dictate what they produce, how much they produce, how they produce it, who they must sell to, etc. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with their business. Epic fail.
Click to expand...


No, you are astoundingly stupid, the regulations were actually much harsher for Corporations back in the day.

Actually it's not until AFTER FDR that we start to see a lot of looser regulations of the free market, AKA Laissez Faire Capitalism.

This is EXACTLY the opposite of what you've stated.


----------



## P@triot

Rogo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is capitalism; voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean? I'm sorry, but your responses are borderline incoherent.
Click to expand...

We have been dealing with that for months now, Rogo. DP thinks if he just throws a bunch of words together he can dupe people into thinking he knows what he is talking about. Clearly it is not working - but he is still too stupid to figure that out and abandon that very immature strategy.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astounding stupidity....even by your standards. That doesn’t even remotely have anything to do with their business. It doesn’t dictate what they produce, how much they produce, how they produce it, who they must sell to, etc. It has absolutely *nothing* to do with their business. Epic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are astoundingly stupid, the regulations were actually much harsher for Corporations back in the day.
Click to expand...

Prove it, stupid. Don’t give us a comical “law” from Wisconsin stating they couldn’t donate to charity.


----------



## Rogo

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system. Government is a political system. You are a very special kind of stupid.
Click to expand...


You can't really separate the economic from the political as they're interdependent. Also, if we're talking about socialism, socialism is an end to both the political and the economic as definable characteristics of society.


----------



## P@triot

Rogo said:


> You can't really separate the economic from the political


Um..._yes_...you can. That’s why they have separate classifications for them. 

They are completely and totally independent of each other. It’s indisputable. If they weren’t, then every nation would have the same political and economic system.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system. Government is a political system. You are a very special kind of stupid.
Click to expand...

Social-ism is about Government.  Government is established by our Constitutions. 

The Power to do a Thing is Socialism.  

Capitalism must be voluntary and includes no Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is capitalism; voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Social-ism defines Government; we have a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean? I'm sorry, but your responses are borderline incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have been dealing with that for months now, Rogo. DP thinks if he just throws a bunch of words together he can dupe people into thinking he knows what he is talking about. Clearly it is not working - but he is still too stupid to figure that out and abandon that very immature strategy.
Click to expand...

words matter, even in the vacuum of right wing special pleading.


----------



## P@triot

Rogo said:


> You realize I'm a communist, right?


You realize that is an awful indictment on you, right? Communism is responsible for the worst atrocities in the history of the world. It says a lot about you that you would devote yourself to something like that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> words matter,


Yes they do. “The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Words matter.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> words matter,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. “The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Words matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially when it is about the security of a free State and not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Social-ism is about Government.


  

Socialism is an economic system, snowflake. Government is _exclusively_ political.

(Words matter, stupid)


----------



## Rogo

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't really separate the economic from the political
> 
> 
> 
> Um..._yes_...you can. That’s why they have separate classifications for them.
> 
> They are completely and totally independent of each other. It’s indisputable. If they weren’t, then every nation would have the same political and economic system.
Click to expand...


Linguistic distinction is not the same as material distinction.

Also, I don't see how such a notion is "indisputable" considering even lesser political theorists like Milton Friedman agree that those two spheres of society are inseparable. 

The last sentence of your statement is illogical. How is it that if the two were interdependent—which they are—every nation would have the same political and economic system?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> words matter,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. “The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Words matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, especially when it is about the security of a free State and not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
Click to expand...

It clearly says “people” and it clearly says “RIGHT”. Words matter, stupid.


----------



## P@triot

Rogo said:


> The last sentence of your statement is illogical. How is it that if the two were interdependent—which they are—every nation would have the same political and economic system?


Because if they were “inseparable” as you claim, you couldn’t separate them. Thus each nation would have the exact same system. The fact that some nations are capitalist and others are socialist indisputably proves that the systems aren’t even remotely tied.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism is about Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system, snowflake. Government is _exclusively_ political.
> 
> (Words matter, stupid)
Click to expand...

I am smart enough to understand a dictionary definition regarding the word, social. 

Social-ism is what we are discussing, not your political jargon invented for the Cold War of last millennium.


----------



## xband

Socialism is FUBAR, fucked up beyond all recognition..


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> words matter,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. “The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Words matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, especially when it is about the security of a free State and not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It clearly says “people” and it clearly says “RIGHT”. Words matter, stupid.
Click to expand...

It is understood, when it is about the security of a free like it says in the first clause; the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## danielpalos

xband said:


> Socialism is FUBAR, fucked up beyond all recognition..


the right wing has nothing but fallacious propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## xband

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> words matter,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. “The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Words matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, especially when it is about the security of a free State and not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It clearly says “people” and it clearly says “RIGHT”. Words matter, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is understood, when it is about the security of a free like it says in the first clause; the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...


However. I stand alone against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I am a militia of one who carries a deer rifle and I would never shoot a deer because I don't like eating Bambi.


----------



## danielpalos

xband said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> words matter,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do. “The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Words matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, especially when it is about the security of a free State and not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It clearly says “people” and it clearly says “RIGHT”. Words matter, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is understood, when it is about the security of a free like it says in the first clause; the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However. I stand alone against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I am a militia of one who carries a deer rifle and I would never shoot a deer because I don't like eating Bambi.
Click to expand...

i prefer to get acquainted with my heavy weapons section.  I am sure I can learn how to do something.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism is about Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system, snowflake. Government is _exclusively_ political.
> 
> (Words matter, stupid)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am smart enough to understand a dictionary definition regarding the word, social.
Click to expand...

But sadly you are too stupid to understand the dictionary definition of the word _socialism_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am sure I can learn how to do something.


Based on what you’ve illustrated thus far with regards to your capacity for learning, I would _highly_ doubt it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It is understood, when it is about the security of a free like it says in the first clause; the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.


It is understood that you are illiterate. It is also understood that you desire to disarm and oppress people. Thankfully for the American people, our founders not only made it a right in the United States constitution, but they made it an individual right for the people. It clearly says “*people*” and it clearly says “*right*”. Words matter, stupid.


----------



## Rogo

P@triot said:


> Rogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence of your statement is illogical. How is it that if the two were interdependent—which they are—every nation would have the same political and economic system?
> 
> 
> 
> Because if they were “inseparable” as you claim, you couldn’t separate them. Thus each nation would have the exact same system. The fact that some nations are capitalist and others are socialist indisputably proves that the systems aren’t even remotely tied.
Click to expand...


That doesn't really answer my question, but okay.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism is about Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system, snowflake. Government is _exclusively_ political.
> 
> (Words matter, stupid)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am smart enough to understand a dictionary definition regarding the word, social.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But sadly you are too stupid to understand the dictionary definition of the word _socialism_.
Click to expand...

just obsolete political jargon used by the right wing to resort to fallacy; special pleading is a fallacy of composition, in this case.

Social-ism, is the concept.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure I can learn how to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what you’ve illustrated thus far with regards to your capacity for learning, I would _highly_ doubt it.
Click to expand...

endurance and stamina practice with extra ammunition and barrels?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is understood, when it is about the security of a free like it says in the first clause; the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> It is understood that you are illiterate. It is also understood that you desire to disarm and oppress people. Thankfully for the American people, our founders not only made it a right in the United States constitution, but they made it an individual right for the people. It clearly says “*people*” and it clearly says “*right*”. Words matter, stupid.
Click to expand...

read our Second Amendment; the People are the Militia when it is about the security of our free States.  Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> just obsolete political jargon


First he says “words matter”. When I use that truth to bury him, he attempts to make words not matter by crying “obsolete political jargon”.

Sorry snowflake, you can’t have it both ways. You’ve been exposed and humiliated here. It isn’t “obsolete political jargon”. *Words* *matter*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Social-ism*,* is the concept.


I’ve, never, seen someone, put, so many, commas, where, they, *don’t* belong.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Social-ism, is the concept.


Socialism isn’t a “concept”. It’s an _economic_ system, stupid.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> read our Second Amendment; the People are the Militia when it is about the security of our free States.


No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state “the people are the militia”. It *doesn’t* even _imply_ that. It clearly states that arms are a *right* and it belongs to the *people*.

Words matter. You lose.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism, is the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism isn’t a “concept”. It’s an _economic_ system, stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes social-ism is a concept; our Founding Fathers provided the social contract to accomplish it and called it our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> read our Second Amendment; the People are the Militia when it is about the security of our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state “the people are the militia”. It *doesn’t* even _imply_ that. It clearly states that arms are a *right* and it belongs to the *people*.
> 
> Words matter. You lose.
Click to expand...

Meaning matters.  The security of a free State necessitates the collective action of the Militia. 

Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes social-ism is a concept;


No, snowflake, socialism (not social-ism  ) is *not* a “concept”. It is an _economic_ system. A failed economic system. Just like all of your posts!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only the right wing*, *never gets it.


The king of the comma is at it again. No wonder you don’t grasp the U.S. constitution or basic economics. You can’t even grasp grammar.

Now I’m going to try that sentence again, as _you_:


> The*,* king of*,* the comma is at*,* it again. No*,* wonder you don’t grasp the U.S.*,* constitution or basic*,* economics. You can’t even grasp*,* grammar.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> read our Second Amendment; the People are the Militia when it is about the security of our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state “the people are the militia”. It *doesn’t* even _imply_ that. It clearly states that arms are a *right* and it belongs to the *people*.
> 
> Words matter. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaning matters.
Click to expand...

Meaning does matter. And “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means that the *people* (not some militia) have a *right* to keep and bear arms!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes social-ism is a concept;
> 
> 
> 
> No, snowflake, socialism (not social-ism  ) is *not* a “concept”. It is an _economic_ system. A failed economic system. Just like all of your posts!
Click to expand...

social is the term.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> social is the term.


Stupidity is your hallmark.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...

*1. In 1774, colonial Americans had the highest standard of living on earth*


> According to historian Alice Hansen Jones, Americans at the end of the colonial era averaged an annual income of £13.85, which was the highest in the western world


*2. The average tax rate in colonial America was between 1% and 1.5%*


> Colonial and Early Americans paid a very low tax rate, both by modern and contemporary standards. Just prior to the Revolution, Americans‘ tax rates stood at 1% -1.5%.


Low tax rates and the highest standard of living in the world (despite being a fledgling “nation”). It’s not a coincidence.

Ten Facts About the Early American Economy


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> social is the term.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is your hallmark.
Click to expand...

i know how to resort to dictionary definitions, too.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> *1. In 1774, colonial Americans had the highest standard of living on earth*
> 
> 
> 
> According to historian Alice Hansen Jones, Americans at the end of the colonial era averaged an annual income of £13.85, which was the highest in the western world
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The average tax rate in colonial America was between 1% and 1.5%*
> 
> 
> 
> Colonial and Early Americans paid a very low tax rate, both by modern and contemporary standards. Just prior to the Revolution, Americans‘ tax rates stood at 1% -1.5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Low tax rates and the highest standard of living in the world (despite being a fledgling “nation”). It’s not a coincidence.
> 
> Ten Facts About the Early American Economy
Click to expand...

it claims tax cut economics are worthless if they don't help our own manufacturing base restructure and retool to meet new market conditions.


----------



## Cellblock2429

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


/——/ who could argue with success?  Any self respecting Commie Lib democRAT....that’s who.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> social is the term.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity is your hallmark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know how to resort to dictionary definitions, too.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don’t.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it claims tax cut economics are worthless if they don't help our own manufacturing base restructure and retool to meet new market conditions.


Which is what _any_ tax cut would do. It leaves money where it belongs - in the pockets of the people and the businesses who *earned* it. That, in turn, allows those businesses to “restructure” and “retool” to “meet new market conditions”.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ who could argue with success?  Any self respecting Commie Lib democRAT....that’s who.
Click to expand...

people who read charts instead of trade on news?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it claims tax cut economics are worthless if they don't help our own manufacturing base restructure and retool to meet new market conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what _any_ tax cut would do. It leaves money where it belongs - in the pockets of the people and the businesses who *earned* it. That, in turn, allows those businesses to “restructure” and “retool” to “meet new market conditions”.
Click to expand...

stock buy backs is not, retooling.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it claims tax cut economics are worthless if they don't help our own manufacturing base restructure and retool to meet new market conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what _any_ tax cut would do. It leaves money where it belongs - in the pockets of the people and the businesses who *earned* it. That, in turn, allows those businesses to “restructure” and “retool” to “meet new market conditions”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stock buy backs is not, retooling.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Daniel thinks one size fits all is a solid business plan. After all that the only clothing she buys.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it claims tax cut economics are worthless if they don't help our own manufacturing base restructure and retool to meet new market conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what _any_ tax cut would do. It leaves money where it belongs - in the pockets of the people and the businesses who *earned* it. That, in turn, allows those businesses to “restructure” and “retool” to “meet new market conditions”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stock buy backs is not, retooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Daniel thinks one size fits all is a solid business plan. After all that the only clothing she buys.
Click to expand...

Standards for the Union not the profiteers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> stock buy backs is not*,* retooling.


The, king of, the comma, strikes again. 

For the love of all things holy and decent, will you _please_ take a basic grammar course at your local community college?!?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it claims tax cut economics are worthless if they don't help our own manufacturing base restructure and retool to meet new market conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what _any_ tax cut would do. It leaves money where it belongs - in the pockets of the people and the businesses who *earned* it. That, in turn, allows those businesses to “restructure” and “retool” to “meet new market conditions”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stock buy backs is not, retooling.
Click to expand...

Actually, that’s *exactly* what it is.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Standards for the Union not the profiteers.


The “union” is not authorized to create “standards” for private industry. Even though you wish otherwise, the fact is, businesses do not exist to serve the state.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stock buy backs is not*,* retooling.
> 
> 
> 
> The, king of, the comma, strikes again.
> 
> For the love of all things holy and decent, will you _please_ take a basic grammar course at your local community college?!?
Click to expand...

lol.  focusing on grammar instead of a valid rebuttal is an ad hominem.  fallacy is all the right wing has.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stock buy backs is not*,* retooling.
> 
> 
> 
> The, king of, the comma, strikes again.
> 
> For the love of all things holy and decent, will you _please_ take a basic grammar course at your local community college?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  focusing on grammar instead of a valid rebuttal is an ad hominem.  fallacy is all the right wing has.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Poor grammar and punctuation diminishes your stature in the eyes of your opponents.  It lends to the thought you’re poorly educated and your opinion is weak at best. Now go back and edit your post to capitalize the first letter of each sentence. You look ridiculous.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stock buy backs is not*,* retooling.
> 
> 
> 
> The, king of, the comma, strikes again.
> 
> For the love of all things holy and decent, will you _please_ take a basic grammar course at your local community college?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  focusing on grammar instead of a valid rebuttal is an ad hominem.  fallacy is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Poor grammar and punctuation diminishes your stature in the eyes of your opponents.  It lends to the thought you’re poorly educated and your opinion is weak at best. Now go back and edit your post to capitalize the first letter of each sentence. You look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

having only diversion and other fallacies is even more ridiculous in any rational debate.   

socialism on a national basis is all the right wing offers; income redistribution is what Tax Cut Economics are when they don't cover Spending and are merely added to the Peoples' Debt.


----------



## Silhouette

*The blueprint for prosperity*

Don't you mean the REDprint for prosperity?


----------



## danielpalos

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Tax cut economics; the Rich get Richer and the People get Poorer.

It really is Institutional not Individual.


----------



## P@triot

Cellblock2429 said:


> Poor grammar and punctuation diminishes your stature in the eyes of your opponents.  It lends to the thought you’re poorly educated and your opinion is weak at best.


Thank you! Finally, someone who gets it. That dude just randomly sticks commas _everywhere_ throughout sentences. It’s mind-numbing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Tax cut economics; the Rich get Richer and the People get Poorer.


That’s the way it _should_ be. Only an idiot subsidizes failure. It’s basic Darwinism. The best and brightest succeed, the weakest and sickest do not. It’s the only way to ensure the success and survival of the species.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cut economics; the Rich get Richer and the People get Poorer.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the way it _should_ be. Only an idiot subsidizes failure. It’s basic Darwinism. The best and brightest succeed, the weakest and sickest do not. It’s the only way to ensure the success and survival of the species.
Click to expand...

lol.  You have no credibility; the rich get bailouts for simply being rich.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You have no credibility; the rich get bailouts for simply being rich.


I have complete and total credibility. Don't project your situation onto me. You continue to move the goalposts. First you complained that the wealthy are getting wealthier, when I pointed out how that only make sense, you then turn around and claim that the wealthy get "bailouts" (which is _laughable_).

Nobody has received "bailouts". Only corporations. And in another thread, you celebrated and supported those bailouts. Don't act like you're upset now, snowflake!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no credibility; the rich get bailouts for simply being rich.
> 
> 
> 
> I have complete and total credibility. Don't project your situation onto me. You continue to move the goalposts. First you complained that the wealthy are getting wealthier, when I pointed out how that only make sense, you then turn around and claim that the wealthy get "bailouts" (which is _laughable_).
> 
> Nobody has received "bailouts". Only corporations. And in another thread, you celebrated and supported those bailouts. Don't act like you're upset now, snowflake!
Click to expand...

I support a higher minimum wage to increase tax revenue.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I support a higher minimum wage to increase tax revenue.


That’s like saying “I support Stage-4 cancer for increased quality of life”. Higher minimum wage decreases tax revenues. It’s an indisputable fact that has been proven in the real world. Time to let go of the nonsense ideology.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will function as a cost of living adjustment,


Here you go, _stupid_. Here is what $15 an hour minimum wage does in the *real* world. Just watch. Try learning something for once. This is the difference between reality and left-wing ideology.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support a higher minimum wage to increase tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s like saying “I support Stage-4 cancer for increased quality of life”. Higher minimum wage decreases tax revenues. It’s an indisputable fact that has been proven in the real world. Time to let go of the nonsense ideology.
Click to expand...

Have you watched Gettysburg?  "Labor will only have enfilade fire for a short while"; higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes."  

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, "is the reserve".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will function as a cost of living adjustment,
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, _stupid_. Here is what $15 an hour minimum wage does in the *real* world. Just watch. Try learning something for once. This is the difference between reality and left-wing ideology.
Click to expand...

We need to lose low wage jobs anyway.  There is no reason to subsidize capitalists with Cheap Labor in our First World.

Removing the time limit on compensation for Capitalists preferring their Profit to helping out with social costs and calling it a natural rate of unemployment; should solve that simple "time delay" from higher paid labor creating more in demand and paying more in taxes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We need to lose low wage jobs anyway.


Bingo! The battle-cry of the Dumbocrats! Just an FYI my friend - that attitude right there is why tax revenues plummet under Dumbocrats. You can’t tax unemployed people.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to lose low wage jobs anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! The battle-cry of the Dumbocrats! Just an FYI my friend - that attitude right there is why tax revenues plummet under Dumbocrats. You can’t tax unemployed people.
Click to expand...

lol.  just tax employers until they do.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to lose low wage jobs anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! The battle-cry of the Dumbocrats! Just an FYI my friend - that attitude right there is why tax revenues plummet under Dumbocrats. You can’t tax unemployed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  just tax employers until they do.
Click to expand...

Which will cause even more businesses to shut down and more people to join the unemployment line. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. You have flawlessly illustrated for the class why left-wing policy ends in complete and total collapse like Venezuela.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to lose low wage jobs anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! The battle-cry of the Dumbocrats! Just an FYI my friend - that attitude right there is why tax revenues plummet under Dumbocrats. You can’t tax unemployed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  just tax employers until they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which will cause even more businesses to shut down and more people to join the unemployment line. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. You have flawlessly illustrated for the class why left-wing policy ends in complete and total collapse like Venezuela.
Click to expand...

You just have a bad attitude.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You just have a bad attitude.


You just have *zero* understanding of basic economics and basic business. What you are advocating results in complete and total economic collapse. Ask the good (ignorant) people of Venezuela.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just have a bad attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> You just have *zero* understanding of basic economics and basic business. What you are advocating results in complete and total economic collapse. Ask the good (ignorant) people of Venezuela.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  Higher paid labor pays more in Taxes and Creates more in Demand.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage cover the cost of social services and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, covers the ready reserve labor force in a more cost effective manner.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.


I’ve already proven you wrong, snowflake. I have the history, the data, the results, the facts, etc. - and I’ve posted them all. Don’t project. You’re the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about and everyone here knows it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Higher paid labor pays more in Taxes and Creates more in Demand.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage cover the cost of social services


As I have already *proven* - and you already admitted - government mandated high labor costs for unskilled labor results in unemployment. Unemployed people make $0.00. You can’t tax $0.00. That means less revenue for government (at a time when there are more people unemployed people, thus requiring more government assistance).

You have flawlessly illustrated why left-wing policy ends in economic collapse and perpetual poverty. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union. It didn’t work in Ethiopia. It didn’t work in Cuba. It didn’t work in Venezuela. It didn’t work in Detroit (officially filed for bankruptcy). It will *not* work in the U.S.

Stop being lazy and greedy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve already proven you wrong, snowflake. I have the history, the data, the results, the facts, etc. - and I’ve posted them all. Don’t project. You’re the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about and everyone here knows it.
Click to expand...

all you have is a fallacy and being willing to avoid the truth for purely partisan politics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in Taxes and Creates more in Demand.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage cover the cost of social services
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already *proven* - and you already admitted - government mandated high labor costs for unskilled labor results in unemployment. Unemployed people make $0.00. You can’t tax $0.00. That means less revenue for government (at a time when there are more people unemployed people, thus requiring more government assistance).
> 
> You have flawlessly illustrated why left-wing policy ends in economic collapse and perpetual poverty. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union. It didn’t work in Ethiopia. It didn’t work in Cuba. It didn’t work in Venezuela. It didn’t work in Detroit (officially filed for bankruptcy). It will *not* work in the U.S.
> 
> Stop being lazy and greedy.
Click to expand...

you keep omitting the automatic stabilization of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; fallacy coincidence or fallacy conspiracy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> you keep omitting the automatic stabilization of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; fallacy coincidence or fallacy conspiracy.


No I haven’t. You keep “omitting” the fact that that means even more expense for government and less tax revenues for government.

Only an idiot thinks that more money going out the door for government and less coming in is a good idea. Paying people not to work, doesn’t work.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep omitting the automatic stabilization of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; fallacy coincidence or fallacy conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> No I haven’t. You keep “omitting” the fact that that means even more expense for government and less tax revenues for government.
> 
> Only an idiot thinks that more money going out the door for government and less coming in is a good idea. Paying people not to work, doesn’t work.
Click to expand...

it is more cost effective than means tested welfare; which actually does limit capital mobility.  We should increase market share for the most cost effective social service.  

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of employment inefficiency, is the Market based reason for the Efficiency of such a program.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of employment inefficiency, is the Market based reason for the Efficiency of such a program.


So Daniel's "free market NOT socialist" suggestion is for government to pay people not to work. Uh...that is kind of the textbook definition of socialism. There is *nothing* free market about that.

Unfortunately for you, you've spent your entire life around left-wing dolts. They are very easy to dupe by throwing around a few words. But conservatives actually think for themselves. You're not fooling any of us by obnoxiously using the term "market" over and over and over and over. What you're pitching has NOTHING to do with the free market. It's pure idiocy. I've proven it already. It collapsed Venezuela. I've also proven it in that you refuse to send me $14 an hour to prove you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Epic fail on all fronts.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of employment inefficiency, is the Market based reason for the Efficiency of such a program.
> 
> 
> 
> So Daniel's "free market NOT socialist" suggestion is for government to pay people not to work. Uh...that is kind of the textbook definition of socialism. There is *nothing* free market about that.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you've spent your entire life around left-wing dolts. They are very easy to dupe by throwing around a few words. But conservatives actually think for themselves. You're not fooling any of us by obnoxiously using the term "market" over and over and over and over. What you're pitching has NOTHING to do with the free market. It's pure idiocy. I've proven it already. It collapsed Venezuela. I've also proven it in that you refuse to send me $14 an hour to prove you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Epic fail on all fronts.
Click to expand...

You have to have morals to whine about how capital is spent, right wingers.  You don't care about natural rights.  Only capital Has to circulate to generate a positive multiplier effect.  we want to lose low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services anyway.


----------



## hadit

Siete said:


> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.



That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.
Click to expand...

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?  

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.
Click to expand...


Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?
Click to expand...

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.
Click to expand...


They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only capital Has to circulate to generate a positive multiplier effect.







And _that_ is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.
Click to expand...

too bad; providing for the general welfare is a general power; unlike the power to provide for the common defense.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only capital Has to circulate to generate a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 223584
> 
> And _that_ is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else)
Click to expand...

Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.


By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.



Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad; providing for the general welfare is a general power; unlike the power to provide for the common defense.
Click to expand...


I want fewer people on welfare. Do you want more, and why would you?


----------



## hadit

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
Click to expand...


That and the fact that he never deviates from his message, even using the same meaningless phrases over and over again.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy; that is why the left shouldn't take the right seriously about economics.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad; providing for the general welfare is a general power; unlike the power to provide for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want fewer people on welfare. Do you want more, and why would you?
Click to expand...

Fewer people on means tested welfare could be accomplished by compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our market based economy.  We could be lowering our tax burden in a market friendly manner by merely improving the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and the fact that he never deviates from his message, even using the same meaningless phrases over and over again.
Click to expand...

i don't mind indulging right wing fantasy for fun and practice.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy; that is why the left shouldn't take the right seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

Open market? Now you’re just making shit up about the shit you previously made up. We have a free market, you dumb snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We could be lowering our tax burden in a market friendly manner by merely improving the efficiency of our economy.


Then why do you keep supporting the inefficiencies of government control over our “free” market (which would no longer be free under your idiotic claims)?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy; that is why the left shouldn't take the right seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Open market? Now you’re just making shit up about the shit you previously made up. We have a free market, you dumb snowflake.
Click to expand...

not after 1929.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could be lowering our tax burden in a market friendly manner by merely improving the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep supporting the inefficiencies of government control over our “free” market (which would no longer be free under your idiotic claims)?
Click to expand...

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simpler and more efficient as a result.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.
Click to expand...

your special pleading only works in a vacuum.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> not after 1929.


So you admit that the federal government unconstitutional over-stepped their boundaries? The first honest and accurate thing you have ever stated.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your special pleading only works in a vacuum.
Click to expand...


Yours doesn't work anywhere.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not after 1929.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the federal government unconstitutional over-stepped their boundaries? The first honest and accurate thing you have ever stated.
Click to expand...

No.  I am saying Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been hard at work, bailing out capitalism ever since.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your special pleading only works in a vacuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours doesn't work anywhere.
Click to expand...

it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.
> 
> View attachment 223985
> 
> Danny...this is why *nobody* takes you seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your special pleading only works in a vacuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours doesn't work anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.
Click to expand...


Interesting tactic you have. 

1. Spout insane fallacy.
2. Receive logical and factual correction. 
3. Claim the correction is a fallacy. 
4. Repeat.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your special pleading only works in a vacuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours doesn't work anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting tactic you have.
> 
> 1. Spout insane fallacy.
> 2. Receive logical and factual correction.
> 3. Claim the correction is a fallacy.
> 4. Repeat.
Click to expand...

simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

All new wealth comes from the earth.  The rest is just circulation and distribution.  

Think about that for a moment.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. I don’t blame you. It’s humiliating for you. You have proven that you are completely and totally ignorant about basic economics. You don’t have the slightest clue what generates wealth. It’s as comical as it is tragic.
> 
> 
> 
> your special pleading only works in a vacuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours doesn't work anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting tactic you have.
> 
> 1. Spout insane fallacy.
> 2. Receive logical and factual correction.
> 3. Claim the correction is a fallacy.
> 4. Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.
Click to expand...


Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your special pleading only works in a vacuum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yours doesn't work anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting tactic you have.
> 
> 1. Spout insane fallacy.
> 2. Receive logical and factual correction.
> 3. Claim the correction is a fallacy.
> 4. Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.
Click to expand...

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not after 1929.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the federal government unconstitutional over-stepped their boundaries? The first honest and accurate thing you have ever stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am saying Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been hard at work, bailing out capitalism ever since.
Click to expand...

Right. Which means you just admitted that the federal government over-stepped their boundaries and shredded the U.S. Constitution!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.


Unemployed labor pays $0.00 in taxes, creates 0 demand in the private industry, and creates heavy burden on the government which is now bringing in less taxes thanks you idiot left-wing policies that eliminated their job. All of it, a “self-evident truth”.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not after 1929.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the federal government unconstitutional over-stepped their boundaries? The first honest and accurate thing you have ever stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am saying Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been hard at work, bailing out capitalism ever since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Which means you just admitted that the federal government over-stepped their boundaries and shredded the U.S. Constitution!
Click to expand...

In what way?  The power to provide for the general welfare is general, and FDR had an actual war to deal with.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployed labor pays $0.00 in taxes, creates 0 demand in the private industry, and creates heavy burden on the government which is now bringing in less taxes thanks you idiot left-wing policies that eliminated their job. All of it, a “self-evident truth”.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment solves that dilemma in a market friendly manner because, we need to ensure liquidity in our markets.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployed labor pays $0.00 in taxes, creates 0 demand in the private industry, and creates heavy burden on the government which is now bringing in less taxes thanks you idiot left-wing policies that eliminated their job. All of it, a “self-evident truth”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment solves that dilemma in a market friendly manner because, we need to ensure liquidity in our markets.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. Paying people “X” amount of dollars not to work and then taxing them “Y” amount back is a special kind of stupid that results in a net loss. It’s actually worse than just not taxing them at all. If only you understood basic math. And basic economics. And basic business.

If government hands someone $100 and then taxes them $30, they aren’t up $30 genius. They are down $70. You just illustrated for the class why left-wing policy doesn’t work and why Venezuela is in extreme poverty right now.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours doesn't work anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting tactic you have.
> 
> 1. Spout insane fallacy.
> 2. Receive logical and factual correction.
> 3. Claim the correction is a fallacy.
> 4. Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
Click to expand...


But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployed labor pays $0.00 in taxes, creates 0 demand in the private industry, and creates heavy burden on the government which is now bringing in less taxes thanks you idiot left-wing policies that eliminated their job. All of it, a “self-evident truth”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment solves that dilemma in a market friendly manner because, we need to ensure liquidity in our markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn’t. Paying people “X” amount of dollars not to work and then taxing them “Y” amount back is a special kind of stupid that results in a net loss. It’s actually worse than just not taxing them at all. If only you understood basic math. And basic economics. And basic business.
> 
> If government hands someone $100 and then taxes them $30, they aren’t up $30 genius. They are down $70. You just illustrated for the class why left-wing policy doesn’t work and why Venezuela is in extreme poverty right now.
Click to expand...

More people circulating more capital under our form of capitalism, ensures liquidity and helps stabilize our economy.  Government will receive more consistent tax revenue so Cities won't experience the fate of Detroit.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  A positive multiplier effect happens when People circulate capital under Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it works Everywhere those of the Opposing View only have fallacy instead of rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting tactic you have.
> 
> 1. Spout insane fallacy.
> 2. Receive logical and factual correction.
> 3. Claim the correction is a fallacy.
> 4. Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.
Click to expand...

they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting tactic you have.
> 
> 1. Spout insane fallacy.
> 2. Receive logical and factual correction.
> 3. Claim the correction is a fallacy.
> 4. Repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
Click to expand...


If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming that is not the same as demonstrating it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
Click to expand...

it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.


----------



## P@triot

More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.


> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.


Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.

November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why *punish* the Poor *with* *a* *work* *ethic* from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.


The fact that you think a work ethic is “punishment” is what makes you a joke.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
Click to expand...


Tick tock....


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
Click to expand...

Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown. Maybe a tiny bump from one trillion dollars in really stupid debt. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes..


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown.
Click to expand...

There was no “recovery” under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. There was nothing but collapse and above 10% unemployment. It wasn’t until Republicans took control of this nation after the 2010 midterm. Their policies instantly started the recovery. What we’re seeing is a continuation of _that_.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no “recovery” under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. There was nothing but collapse and above 10% unemployment. It wasn’t until Republicans took control of this nation after the 2010 midterm. Their policies instantly started the recovery. What we’re seeing is a continuation of _that_.
Click to expand...

Obama started with 8% and it went up to 10.3 in October 2009, Super Duper. Then there were seven and a half years of growth just like now. Trump's may screw it up with his stupid tariffs and trade Wars.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Obama started with 8% and it went up to 10.3 in October 2009, Super Duper.


MaObama started with 7.4% unemployment, super dupe. He and the Dumbocrats collapsed everything and caused it to skyrocket over 10%.


francoHFW said:


> Then there were seven and a half years of growth just like now. Trump's may screw it up with his stupid tariffs and trade Wars.


Yeah...and who controlled _everything_ starting in 2011 (7.5 years ago)? The Republicans! They took 69 seats in the 2010 midterm. MaObama himself called it a “shellacking”. It was an even worse bloodbath at the state and local levels.

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama started with 8% and it went up to 10.3 in October 2009, Super Duper.
> 
> 
> 
> MaObama started with 7.4% unemployment, super dupe. He and the Dumbocrats collapsed everything and caused it to skyrocket over 10%.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there were seven and a half years of growth just like now. Trump's may screw it up with his stupid tariffs and trade Wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...and who controlled _everything_ starting in 2011 (7.5 years ago)? The Republicans! They took 69 seats in the 2010 midterm. MaObama himself called it a “shellacking”. It was an even worse bloodbath at the state and local levels.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

 Pure GOP bologna.Republicans did nothing but obstruct Obama du h. They also obstructed him his first two years except for 40 days in session or so. Their policies did not exist.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama started with 8% and it went up to 10.3 in October 2009, Super Duper.
> 
> 
> 
> MaObama started with 7.4% unemployment, super dupe. He and the Dumbocrats collapsed everything and caused it to skyrocket over 10%.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there were seven and a half years of growth just like now. Trump's may screw it up with his stupid tariffs and trade Wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...and who controlled _everything_ starting in 2011 (7.5 years ago)? The Republicans! They took 69 seats in the 2010 midterm. MaObama himself called it a “shellacking”. It was an even worse bloodbath at the state and local levels.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

Obama started with 7.8%, basically what I said, liar
...Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. You're just claiming, not demonstrating.
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
Click to expand...


A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown. Maybe a tiny bump from one trillion dollars in really stupid debt. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes..
Click to expand...

/----/ So why dd Obozo allow the market to sell off so much? Revenge for not electing Hildabeast?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand; it is a self-evident Truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
Click to expand...

every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.

Automatic Stabilizer


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what you want. You want those who choose not to work to be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
Click to expand...


World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which limits our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Obama started with 7.8%, basically what I said, liar
> ...Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org.


Ahahaha! So it was in the 7% range like I said. You lied and said 8%. It wasn't 8%. That is yet another example of you being a desperate partisan tool.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.


It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> too bad you have a fallacy of false *C*ause.


Too bad you have severe illiteracy. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously about the U.S. Constitution when you've never read it? You can't even read and write.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism...


Bingo! No socialism allowed per the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
Click to expand...

those are examples and qualifications of what was meant, by the general welfare, nothing more.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false *C*ause.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you have severe illiteracy. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously about the U.S. Constitution when you've never read it? You can't even read and write.
Click to expand...

I don't make silly excuses.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those are examples and qualifications of what was meant, by the general welfare, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! Those were the 18 enumerated powers. Anything beyond that is illegal/unconstitutional. In case you were confused by that fact, it was even further clarified by our 10th Amendment.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false *C*ause.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you have severe illiteracy. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously about the U.S. Constitution when you've never read it? You can't even read and write.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make silly excuses.
Click to expand...

You also don't read or write.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
Click to expand...

Don't you read?
Don created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2.
And only 155000 in November?
 Let me find the bikini graphs for you


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown. Maybe a tiny bump from one trillion dollars in really stupid debt. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ So why dd Obozo allow the market to sell off so much? Revenge for not electing Hildabeast?
Click to expand...

More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they still have to eat, pay rent, and create demand, so You won't get laid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

But the definition of socialism since World War II everywhere but cold war dinosaur America means always democratic, Fair capitalism with a good safety net.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the definition of socialism since World War II everywhere but cold war dinosaur America means always democratic, Fair capitalism with a good safety net.
Click to expand...

See every modern successful country in the world. So why are we the only one without Health Care daycare paid parental leave living wage cheap college and training, good vacations and infrastructure, national ID card to end illegal immigration? The scumbag lying GOP and silly dupes like you.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
Click to expand...

but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those are examples and qualifications of what was meant, by the general welfare, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!!! Those were the 18 enumerated powers. Anything beyond that is illegal/unconstitutional. In case you were confused by that fact, it was even further clarified by our 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

examples and qualifications are not Restrictions.  

Our welfare clause is General, and we have a Commerce Clause.  There is no reason to lose money on border policy when we could be generating revenue in a market friendly manner.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which limits our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
Click to expand...


A work ethic benefits all. Deal with it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which limits our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits all. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

not with Capitalism's, not my, Natural rate of unemployment.  It is public policy not private policy.  Deal with it.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is able to work and has jobs available to them, they should work. Welfare and unemployment compensation should only be for those who cannot work or have no jobs available.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the definition of socialism since World War II everywhere but cold war dinosaur America means always democratic, Fair capitalism with a good safety net.
Click to expand...


Where did I mention socialism?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
Click to expand...


Where have the useless democrats been?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
Click to expand...

Why do you worship a piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
And our Ben . I keep telling you he wanted to ban German immigrants
"They are swarthy can't speak our language and are taking our jobs"
Remind you of anything?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama started with 7.8%, basically what I said, liar
> ...Obama's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahahaha! So it was in the 7% range like I said. You lied and said 8%. It wasn't 8%. That is yet another example of you being a desperate partisan tool.
Click to expand...

Omg, talk about clutching at straws. 7 v's 8 hilarious
No worries about the orange blobs deficit and debt is at record levels?
Or was that the uppity nixxers doing?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the definition of socialism since World War II everywhere but cold war dinosaur America means always democratic, Fair capitalism with a good safety net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I mention socialism?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter; Government IS Social-ism.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown. Maybe a tiny bump from one trillion dollars in really stupid debt. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ So why dd Obozo allow the market to sell off so much? Revenge for not electing Hildabeast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.
Click to expand...

/----/ And don't let anyone tell you the zero Fed Interest rates where banks could borrow money at 0% and then invest it in the market for a great return  had anything to do with it. It was all Obozo's brilliance that did it.


----------



## cutter

My blueprint is let the job producers produce jobs, let the workers keep more of their earnings to buy things to produce more jobs, make the government so small they don’t burden everybody with unnecessary laws and regulations. After we do that prosperity will take care of itself.


----------



## cutter

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a continuation of Obama's recovery from the corrupt GOP economic meltdown. Maybe a tiny bump from one trillion dollars in really stupid debt. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ So why dd Obozo allow the market to sell off so much? Revenge for not electing Hildabeast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And don't let anyone tell you the zero Fed Interest rates where banks could borrow money at 0% and then invest it in the market for a great return  had anything to do with it. It was all Obozo's brilliance that did it.
> View attachment 233615
Click to expand...

The 0% intrest rate is designed to discourage saving and promote reckless spending making the public more dependent of the government. It’s all about letting the government controll you.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
Click to expand...

Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Convenience under Capitalism; there are no easy stores.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more efficient and cost effective; why require a work ethic in Any at-will employment State?  Why punish the Poor with a work ethic from the capital Age of Iron instead of encourage in our more social, modern Information Age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A work ethic benefits everyone. In fact, the lack of a work ethic is what dooms communism. Once people realize there is no reward for working, they stop, and it falls apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every economic model proves you wrong, right wingers.  the Laws of demand and supply don't cease to work for the special pleading of right wing fantasy.
> 
> Automatic Stabilizer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World history proves me right. Communism requires totalitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the definition of socialism since World War II everywhere but cold war dinosaur America means always democratic, Fair capitalism with a good safety net.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I mention socialism?
Click to expand...

Sorry I thought you were the typical GOP Chump who thinks communism is socialism and socialism is communism... And Nazism is socialism so Nazism is communism so Democrats are Nazis LOL...


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
Click to expand...

/----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
Click to expand...


So voting for democrats is useless. Why do you keep doing it? Obviously, they're not helping you.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
Click to expand...

They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad you have a fallacy of false Cause.  We are discussing the Socialism of Government.  We have a Constitution which *limits* our mere Use of Socialism for the general welfare and public Good.
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So voting for democrats is useless. Why do you keep doing it? Obviously, they're not helping you.
Click to expand...

we're waiting for brainwashed functional idiots like you to figure out what's going on dot-dot. Trump is so pathetic maybe this is our chance. Poor America


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also *LIMITS* our federal government to 18 enumerated powers...and redistributing what other people have earned isn't one of them. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.
Click to expand...

/----/ Another wild guess? BWHAHAHAHAHA
Millionaires pay a rate that's more than four times that of the middle class.
The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Another wild guess? BWHAHAHAHAHA
> Millionaires pay a rate that's more than four times that of the middle class.
> The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate
Click to expand...

That is the GOP brainwashed that only takes into account federal income tax, the only progressive tax we have. If you count all taxes, the rich pay the same as the middle class and not much more than the poorest among us percentage wise. But thanks for the garbage super dupe. Are you able to Google the only tax graph you need to know? Includes all taxes included state and local which continue to rise under the GOP mess to make up for the lack of Federal Aid, the result of lower and lower federal taxes on the rich.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it's fine when it's the GOP redistributing money upwards to the greedy idiot rich like the last 30 years, right super duper? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/?utm_term=.08af1bff98bf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ_5rFm5HfAhXEqIMKHWJyAcQQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Another wild guess? BWHAHAHAHAHA
> Millionaires pay a rate that's more than four times that of the middle class.
> The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/?utm_term=.08af1bff98bf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ_5rFm5HfAhXEqIMKHWJyAcQQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> 
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Another wild guess? BWHAHAHAHAHA
> Millionaires pay a rate that's more than four times that of the middle class.
> The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/?utm_term=.08af1bff98bf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ_5rFm5HfAhXEqIMKHWJyAcQQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj
Click to expand...

/——/ Oh horseshyt


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Another wild guess? BWHAHAHAHAHA
> Millionaires pay a rate that's more than four times that of the middle class.
> The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/?utm_term=.08af1bff98bf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ_5rFm5HfAhXEqIMKHWJyAcQQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Oh horseshyt
Click to expand...

Read the article d****** and stop spreading garbage propaganda.


----------



## danielpalos

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/?utm_term=.08af1bff98bf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ_5rFm5HfAhXEqIMKHWJyAcQQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj
> Where have the useless democrats been?
> 
> 
> 
> Our form of government is fantastic for obstruction, all the GOP wants now that they have ridiculously low taxes on the rich... We need a democratic landslide with 60 votes at least in the Senate to get way overdue reforms... When do you idiots realize what crap you believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Please tell us how much the rich pay in ridiculously low taxes? And I mean in a dollar amount - let's say for someone earning $5 million a year. what they pay now vs what you think is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They pay about 27% in all taxes, the same as the middle class. And end up with all the new wealth and after 35 years we have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, and in the modern world. We are spending half as much on infrastructure as we always did and the country is falling apart and so is the middle class. Great job scumbag GOP and silly Dupes like you. Google the only tax graph you need to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Another wild guess? BWHAHAHAHAHA
> Millionaires pay a rate that's more than four times that of the middle class.
> The Millionaires Who Pay the Highest Tax Rate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/?utm_term=.08af1bff98bf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ_5rFm5HfAhXEqIMKHWJyAcQQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw20dGudBuUA-vvf01bWaHTj
Click to expand...

Special pleading in a vacuum is all the right wing has; nothing but right wing fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.


Under MaObama? You mean, during the era when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. Gee...I wonder why we saw such a turn around from the catastrophic collapse created by MaObama and the Dumbocrats.

You're not fooling anyone when you try to give MaObama the credit. His policies were catastrophic (not to mention unconstitutional in most cases). It's no coincidence then that our economy has seen record results after Trump replaced the marxist moron. The White House was the final piece. MaObama could no longer obstruct and/or destroy with unconstitutional regulations. Once Trump rolled everything back, the economy went off the charts!


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you read? Don created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2. And only 155000 in November? Let me find the bikini graphs for you
Click to expand...

You're illiterate, uh snowflake? Thanks to the Republicans controlling the U.S. since 2010 and MaObama and the Dumbocrats creating above 10% unemployment, there were MANY jobs to be created. And that's what the Republicans did when they took over.

When unemployment is 4%, job creation will be MUCH SLOWER than it will be at 10% unemployment, you nitwit. Doesn't change the fact that Trump has created record lows in unemployment, record highs in the market, and that we continue to see incomes rise.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> That is the GOP brainwashed that only takes into account federal income tax, the only progressive tax we have.


Which is so repugnant. You're an absolute disgrace to this great country that you relish and celebrate a repulsive "progressive tax" because you're a fuck'n parasite.

Tell me something, why should one American pay 40% in taxes while another American pays 30% in taxes, and still another pays 0% in taxes. Talk about NOT PAYING your "FAIR SHARE".

Every fuck'n American in the nation should pay 10%. Period. Don't care if you have millions (which would result in a six-figure tax bill) or if you have $100 (which would result in a $10 tax bill).

But sadly, you're ignorant of basic math and you're greedy. A horrible combination.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> Under MaObama? You mean, during the era when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. Gee...I wonder why we saw such a turn around from the catastrophic collapse created by MaObama and the Dumbocrats.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone when you try to give MaObama the credit. His policies were catastrophic (not to mention unconstitutional in most cases). It's no coincidence then that our economy has seen record results after Trump replaced the marxist moron. The White House was the final piece. MaObama could no longer obstruct and/or destroy with unconstitutional regulations. Once Trump rolled everything back, the economy went off the charts!
Click to expand...

He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, which worked beautifully, and the strength of the American economy and the American worker. The American economy doesn't need help it is so strong. Now the Republicans are in screwing things up again tariff Wars giant tax cuts for the rich and absolutely no reform of any kind, like the last 40-50 years...Obama did at least get ObamaCare through which will fix our health system in the long run .. with a lot of tinkering as expected. It is the Republican plan after all.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> Under MaObama? You mean, during the era when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. Gee...I wonder why we saw such a turn around from the catastrophic collapse created by MaObama and the Dumbocrats.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone when you try to give MaObama the credit. His policies were catastrophic (not to mention unconstitutional in most cases). It's no coincidence then that our economy has seen record results after Trump replaced the marxist moron. The White House was the final piece. MaObama could no longer obstruct and/or destroy with unconstitutional regulations. Once Trump rolled everything back, the economy went off the charts!
Click to expand...

You are a brainwashed ignoramus. The  corrupt GOP caused the 2008 World depression Obama turned it around. 7.8% unemployment with a bullet when he came in... God damn idiot GOP voters oh, you are a disgrace.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> More garbage fake news from the new BS GOP, super dupe. Stock market has never gone up more under a President than it did under Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> Under MaObama? You mean, during the era when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. Gee...I wonder why we saw such a turn around from the catastrophic collapse created by MaObama and the Dumbocrats.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone when you try to give MaObama the credit. His policies were catastrophic (not to mention unconstitutional in most cases). It's no coincidence then that our economy has seen record results after Trump replaced the marxist moron. The White House was the final piece. MaObama could no longer obstruct and/or destroy with unconstitutional regulations. Once Trump rolled everything back, the economy went off the charts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a brainwashed ignoramus. The  corrupt GOP caused the 2008 World depression Obama turned it around. 7.8% unemployment with a bullet when he came in... God damn idiot GOP voters oh, you are a disgrace.
Click to expand...

All those Republican governors and congressmen did nothing but obstruct everything they possibly could, which was everything except the stimulus and ObamaCare. Now the GOP assholes lie, saying well what you said which is ridiculous and that Obama had control for two years and his policies did anyting. Again all he passed was the stimulus and ObamaCare end of story.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, which worked beautifully


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, *which* *worked* *beautifully*


Man...you really are a special kind of ignorant. MaObama “promised” if we passed his stimulus, unemployment would “never reach 8%”. Instead, it skyrocketed to over 10%.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> *He* *didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully


Fascinating. So he didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes? And he didn’t unconstitutionally leverage Executive Orders to roll out hundreds and hundreds of stifling regulations? And he didn’t use those regulations with the intent of putting the coal industry completely out of business? How about his really dirty business of putting pressure on all financial institutions not to do business with any company that manufactured or sold firearms and ammunition?

You’re clearly not informed enough to be here discussing _any_ of the subject matter on this board. You’re an embarrassment to your party and your country.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, *which* *worked* *beautifully*
> 
> 
> 
> Man...you really are a special kind of ignorant. MaObama “promised” if we passed his stimulus, unemployment would “never reach 8%”. Instead, it skyrocketed to over 10%.
Click to expand...

He said that when It was about 6%, he didn't realize it was a 9% economic retraction, nor did anyone else when he said it, super duper. It reached 8% about two weeks after he got in for Chris sake d u h.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He* *didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. So he didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes? And he didn’t unconstitutionally leverage Executive Orders to roll out hundreds and hundreds of stifling regulations? And he didn’t use those regulations with the intent of putting the coal industry completely out of business? How about his really dirty business of putting pressure on all financial institutions not to do business with any company that manufactured or sold firearms and ammunition?
> 
> You’re clearly not informed enough to be here discussing _any_ of the subject matter on this board. You’re an embarrassment to your party and your country.
Click to expand...

Nope. All garbage GOP propaganda. Firearms ban no imaginary garbage. Or link to any of that crap...and his economy was just as good as Trump's is now without a corrupt 1 trillion dollar just to pay off the rich. More jobs produced the last 21 months of Obama than the 21 months of trump. You're totally brainwashed, shit head


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He* *didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. So he didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes? And he didn’t unconstitutionally leverage Executive Orders to roll out hundreds and hundreds of stifling regulations? And he didn’t use those regulations with the intent of putting the coal industry completely out of business? How about his really dirty business of putting pressure on all financial institutions not to do business with any company that manufactured or sold firearms and ammunition?
> 
> You’re clearly not informed enough to be here discussing _any_ of the subject matter on this board. You’re an embarrassment to your party and your country.
Click to expand...

He tried to raise taxes on the rich and finally got 5% more by giving away the store to the GOP. The scumbags


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He* *didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. So he didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes? And he didn’t unconstitutionally leverage Executive Orders to roll out hundreds and hundreds of stifling regulations? And he didn’t use those regulations with the intent of putting the coal industry completely out of business? How about his really dirty business of putting pressure on all financial institutions not to do business with any company that manufactured or sold firearms and ammunition?
> 
> You’re clearly not informed enough to be here discussing _any_ of the subject matter on this board. You’re an embarrassment to your party and your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. All garbage GOP propaganda. Firearms ban no imaginary garbage. Or link to any of that crap...and his economy was just as good as Trump's is now without a corrupt 1 trillion dollar just to pay off the rich. More jobs produced the last 21 months of Obama than the 21 months of trump. You're totally brainwashed, shit head
Click to expand...

 he had fewer executive orders than any president in some time...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He* *didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. So he didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes? And he didn’t unconstitutionally leverage Executive Orders to roll out hundreds and hundreds of stifling regulations? And he didn’t use those regulations with the intent of putting the coal industry completely out of business? How about his really dirty business of putting pressure on all financial institutions not to do business with any company that manufactured or sold firearms and ammunition?
> 
> You’re clearly not informed enough to be here discussing _any_ of the subject matter on this board. You’re an embarrassment to your party and your country.
Click to expand...

Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, *which* *worked* *beautifully*
> 
> 
> 
> Man...you really are a special kind of ignorant. MaObama “promised” if we passed his stimulus, unemployment would “never reach 8%”. Instead, it skyrocketed to over 10%.
Click to expand...

It was over 8% when the stimulus was passed for crying out loud super duper LOL man read something


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, *which* *worked* *beautifully*
> 
> 
> 
> Man...you really are a special kind of ignorant. MaObama “promised” if we passed his stimulus, unemployment would “never reach 8%”. Instead, it skyrocketed to over 10%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said that when It was about 6%
Click to expand...

Well that would have been one hell of a trick since unemployment was at 7% (and change) on the day he was sworn in.

The fact that you have to resort to *lying* says it all. You’re just a greedy, lazy, parasite. And nobody is interested in your bullshit. Nobody.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He* *didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. So he didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes? And he didn’t unconstitutionally leverage Executive Orders to roll out hundreds and hundreds of stifling regulations? And he didn’t use those regulations with the intent of putting the coal industry completely out of business? How about his really dirty business of putting pressure on all financial institutions not to do business with any company that manufactured or sold firearms and ammunition?
> 
> You’re clearly not informed enough to be here discussing _any_ of the subject matter on this board. You’re an embarrassment to your party and your country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. All garbage GOP propaganda. Firearms ban no imaginary garbage. Or link to any of that crap...and his economy was just as good as Trump's is now without a corrupt 1 trillion dollar just to pay off the rich. More jobs produced the last 21 months of Obama than the 21 months of trump. You're totally brainwashed, shit head
Click to expand...

So if I produce video of Obama himself talking about his increased taxes and/or his regulations through executive orders, will you permanently quit USMB and never come back (including under another screen name)?

You’re fucked now, you piece of shit. You *lied* so much you’ve backed yourself into a corner.


----------



## danielpalos

Increasing the minimum wage to raise tax revenue instead of simply raising taxes.


----------



## P@triot

In post #1445, I made the following comment:


P@triot said:


> So [Obama] didn’t lobby Congress to increase taxes?


In post #1447, Franco made the following ignorant *lie*:


francoHFW said:


> Nope. All garbage GOP propaganda.


But then the super dupe dimwit decides to Google the facts and just a single post later - #1448 - admits that Obama did raise taxes (even though he continues to lie about who was taxed and the rates at which they were taxed):


francoHFW said:


> He tried to *raise* *taxes* *on* *the* *rich* *and* finally *got* *5% more *by giving away the store to the GOP. The scumbags



It is now indisputable, documented fact that Franco is a liar and an asshole.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Nope. All garbage GOP propaganda. Firearms ban no imaginary garbage. Or link to any of that crap...


Nobody said “firearms ban”. Apparently you are illiterate. No wonder you’re a fuck’n super dupe parasite.


----------



## Uncensored2008

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!



Why do leftist hack sites always pretend to be "fact checkers?"  Is it because you Communists see yourselves as the ultimate arbiters of truth?

In this case the radical left site held opinions based on shaky logic with virtually zero hard fact to base their opinion on, yet still deemed themselves the judge of "truth."

You Stalinists are pretentious assholes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Siete said:


> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.



Thanks to Donald Trump.

But Main saw a decline even under Obama, when the rest of the nation was expanding recipients by double digit percentages.


----------



## danielpalos

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand in any long run equilibrium.  

Solving for capitalism's _natural_ rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner can improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> he had fewer executive orders than any president in some time...


That’s true. And you know why he did that? Because he knew he could dupe his ultra ignorant base made up of blind illiterate partisans such as yourself. He intentionally stayed away from Executive Orders and instead used Presidential Memorandums. They do the *exact* same thing. And then he told you ignorant buffoons “I signed less Executive Orders than any President of recent history” and you bought into it like an idiot. 

And you know what is really funny? He signed more Presidential Memorandums than any President in U.S. _history_.

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Donald Trump.
> 
> But Main saw a decline even under Obama, when the rest of the nation was expanding recipients by double digit percentages.
Click to expand...

normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23


Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.


> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.


Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand in any long run equilibrium.


Government-mandated “higher paid labor” results in higher unemployment and reduced hours. All of which result in less income for the low-wage individual and less tax revenue to the government.

You’ve lost this argument already, snowflake. No matter how many times you post this desperate pipe-dream of yours, it will still be false. It was *proven* in Seattle. The minimum wage employees went home with less money because many lost their jobs while others had their hours cut. You know this. You saw the link. You acknowledged the link. Now you’re just being an asshole posting something you know to be false.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand in any long run equilibrium.
> 
> 
> 
> Government-mandated “higher paid labor” results in higher unemployment and reduced hours. All of which result in less income for the low-wage individual and less tax revenue to the government.
> 
> You’ve lost this argument already, snowflake. No matter how many times you post this desperate pipe-dream of yours, it will still be false. It was *proven* in Seattle. The minimum wage employees went home with less money because many lost their jobs while others had their hours cut. You know this. You saw the link. You acknowledged the link. Now you’re just being an asshole posting something you know to be false.
Click to expand...

I am also advocating for automatic stabilization of our economy to increase our efficiency in a market friendly manner.  

The right wing "doesn't like it", Because the Poor may benefit in modern economic times.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.


He constitutionally leveraged Executive Orders to roll back all of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders which implemented regulations detrimental to the economy.

He also signed a massive tax cut.

The fact that you are ignorant of all of these realities is why you shouldn’t be here discussing these issues.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The right wing "doesn't like it", Because the Poor may benefit in modern economic times.


The “poor” benefits most when government stays in their lane and doesn’t unconstitutionally encroach on the free market.

Just ask Venezuela. Or Seattle. Or Detroit.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am also advocating for *automatic* *stabilization* of our economy to increase our efficiency in a market friendly manner.


A. Our market is currently “stable” and enjoying record-low unemployment. Epic fail.

B. There is no such thing as “automatic stabilization” of a market. Stop trying to _sound_ smart. It makes you sound really stupid.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have any policies except the stimulus, *which* *worked* *beautifully*
> 
> 
> 
> Man...you really are a special kind of ignorant. MaObama “promised” if we passed his stimulus, unemployment would “never reach 8%”. Instead, it skyrocketed to over 10%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said that when It was about 6%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that would have been one hell of a trick since unemployment was at 7% (and change) on the day he was sworn in.
> 
> The fact that you have to resort to *lying* says it all. You’re just a greedy, lazy, parasite. And nobody is interested in your bullshit. Nobody.
Click to expand...

The unemployment rate was already about 8% when ARRA went into effect.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.
> 
> 
> 
> He constitutionally leveraged Executive Orders to roll back all of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders which implemented regulations detrimental to the economy.
> 
> He also signed a massive tax cut.
> 
> The fact that you are ignorant of all of these realities is why you shouldn’t be here discussing these issues.
Click to expand...

The trend was upward, regardless.  Nothing Your guy could have could have stopped that trend until Your guy "launched his trade war" And started talking smack to our allies.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
Click to expand...

So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....


----------



## cutter

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
Click to expand...

Trumps higher unemployment, lower taxed, less dependence on food stamps, booming economy, 3+% growth rate, manufacturing jobs returning, like obama said wolud never happen, public optimism about our economy. And you think it’s just like obama? What are you smoking?


----------



## francoHFW

cutter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps higher unemployment, lower taxed, less dependence on food stamps, booming economy, 3+% growth rate, manufacturing jobs returning, like obama said wolud never happen, public optimism about our economy. And you think it’s just like obama? What are you smoking?
Click to expand...

It does help people's Outlook when Fox Rush Etc and the rest of the GOP BS propaganda machine stops bad-mouthing everything that's going on no matter what. They and dupes like you are a disgrace... Everything you mentioned is just a continuation of Obama's economy or else just b******* propaganda...


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jobs. Higher wages. Thank you, *President* *Trump*.
> 
> 
> 
> With over 7 million open jobs in America, employers are more willing to raise wages and benefits, with average hourly earnings rising in November by 6 cents to $27.35, increasing 81 cents over the year, or 3.1%.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends in prosperity like proven conservative policy.
> 
> November Sees Slower but Steady Job Growth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you read? Don created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2. And only 155000 in November? Let me find the bikini graphs for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're illiterate, uh snowflake? Thanks to the Republicans controlling the U.S. since 2010 and MaObama and the Dumbocrats creating above 10% unemployment, there were MANY jobs to be created. And that's what the Republicans did when they took over.
> 
> When unemployment is 4%, job creation will be MUCH SLOWER than it will be at 10% unemployment, you nitwit. Doesn't change the fact that Trump has created record lows in unemployment, record highs in the market, and that we continue to see incomes rise.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the foul zero college mouth.
I thought it was you who didn't know the origin of snowflake
Or that the guy on your pic tried to ban German immigrants 
Trump created nothing, his graph is following Obama data
So, Obama had 75 months of growth.
Jobs created 
2015 2.7 mm
2016 2.2 mm
2017 2.1 mm
2018 2.1 mm maybe?
Forgot that Obama inherited losing 750000 jobs a month?
Forgot trumps debt and deficit are all time records?
Did he create these? Oh no, that was Obama 
I thought the dec market = Jan.
And Obamas market went up way more than dons. He inherited a way low one
Hey, as a millionaire I don't care but it amuses me to see you're made up mind.
Let me find the unemployment graph for you again. It's been steadily  going down forever
Have a great Xmas darlin. Watch the stomach bile


----------



## ph3iron

francoHFW said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps higher unemployment, lower taxed, less dependence on food stamps, booming economy, 3+% growth rate, manufacturing jobs returning, like obama said wolud never happen, public optimism about our economy. And you think it’s just like obama? What are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does help people's Outlook when Fox Rush Etc and the rest of the GOP BS propaganda machine stops bad-mouthing everything that's going on no matter what. They and dupes like you are a disgrace... Everything you mentioned is just a continuation of Obama's economy or else just b******* propaganda...
Click to expand...


It is hilarious.
Our old white farts sucking off their socialist benefits don't seem to be able to read graphs.
Such as this simple one
"unemployment graph"


----------



## ph3iron

francoHFW said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps higher unemployment, lower taxed, less dependence on food stamps, booming economy, 3+% growth rate, manufacturing jobs returning, like obama said wolud never happen, public optimism about our economy. And you think it’s just like obama? What are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does help people's Outlook when Fox Rush Etc and the rest of the GOP BS propaganda machine stops bad-mouthing everything that's going on no matter what. They and dupes like you are a disgrace... Everything you mentioned is just a continuation of Obama's economy or else just b******* propaganda...
Click to expand...


It is amusing when our super patriot always seem s to have to include such stupid insults as  dumbocrat


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.
> 
> 
> 
> He constitutionally leveraged Executive Orders to roll back all of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders which implemented regulations detrimental to the economy.
> 
> He also signed a massive tax cut.
> 
> The fact that you are ignorant of all of these realities is why you shouldn’t be here discussing these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trend was upward, regardless.
Click to expand...

Yeah...it was “upwards” thanks to Republicans controlling _everything_ around the nation and implementing proven conservative policy.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> The unemployment rate was already about 8% when ARRA went into effect.


Well then MaObama was extra stupid for “promising” that unemployment would never hit 8% if we passed his absurd “stimulus package”.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
Click to expand...

Wow! What a change in your position. First MaObama “didn’t” have any policies and “didn’t” govern by executive fiat.

Now you want to move the goalposts and claim “well....yeah...he did..._but_...prove that it was determinental”. And you know what? When I prove that (and I will shortly here), you’ll just move the goalposts again. Because you’re never going to accept that your messiah was a piece of shit who shredded the U.S. Constitution and severly damaged the United States.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.
> 
> 
> 
> He constitutionally leveraged Executive Orders to roll back all of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders which implemented regulations detrimental to the economy.
> 
> He also signed a massive tax cut.
> 
> The fact that you are ignorant of all of these realities is why you shouldn’t be here discussing these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trend was upward, regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...it was “upwards” thanks to Republicans controlling _everything_ around the nation and implementing proven conservative policy.
Click to expand...

Mainly blocking tried-and-true Solutions Obama wanted, thankfully our economy runs great all by itself and doesn't need giveaway to the rich tax breaks like Trump's... But thanks for allowing 911 through sheer incompetence, the stupidest Wars ever, another corrupt GOP World depression, and the worst BS propaganda machine in our history, as well as giving us the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history, brainwashed functional moron. GOP is a never-ending catastrophe except for the greedy idiot GOP  super rich...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow! What a change in your position. First MaObama “didn’t” have any policies and “didn’t” govern by executive fiat.
> 
> Now you want to move the goalposts and claim “well....yeah...he did..._but_...prove that it was determinental”. And you know what? When I prove that (and I will shortly here), you’ll just move the goalposts again. Because you’re never going to accept that your messiah was a piece of shit who shredded the U.S. Constitution and severly damaged the United States.
Click to expand...

Absolutely ridiculous as always, brainwashed functional moron. So could we have some examples of these terrible regulations that caused nothing in reality but intelligent solutions?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> It does help people's Outlook when Fox Rush Etc and the rest of the GOP BS propaganda machine stops bad-mouthing everything that's going on no matter what. They and dupes like you are a disgrace... Everything you mentioned is just a continuation of Obama's economy or else just b******* propaganda...


That’s what you said just a few short posts ago and I proved you wrong. The fact is, you were duped into believing that the left-wing propaganda is “real” and reality is “propaganda”.

You could wake up any time you want. You just don’t want to wake up. You prefer the ideology you were duped into believing.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does help people's Outlook when Fox Rush Etc and the rest of the GOP BS propaganda machine stops bad-mouthing everything that's going on no matter what. They and dupes like you are a disgrace... Everything you mentioned is just a continuation of Obama's economy or else just b******* propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what you said just a few short posts ago and I proved you wrong. The fact is, younwere duped into believing that the left-wing propaganda is “real” and reality is “propaganda”.
> 
> You could wake up any time you want. You just don’t want to wake up. You prefer the ideology you were duped into believing.
Click to expand...

Funny how all of your propaganda machine's phony scandals have gone absolutely nowhere the last 30 years, and every respected media in the wo rld thinks you are insane. All you have is Rupert Murdoch and your high school grad ex Coke head DJ pundits LOL. How ignorant can you get really?


----------



## P@triot

Here is Frankie in post #1440 claiming MaObama didn’t have any policy...


francoHFW said:


> *He didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully


And after proving him *dead* *wrong*, here is the astounding super dupe in post #1480 acknowledging that MaObama has tons of policies and unconstitutionally ruled by executive fiat, but that those policies (which he previously claimed didn’t exist, mind you) were “intelligent solutions”.


francoHFW said:


> So could we have some examples of these terrible regulations that caused nothing in reality but intelligent solutions


That is what is known as being a “partisan hack”. Always moving the goalposts rather than simply accepting what you believed was wrong.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> Here is Frankie in post #1440 claiming MaObama didn’t have any policy...
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He didn't have any policies *except the stimulus, which worked beautifully
> 
> 
> 
> And after proving him *dead* *wrong*, here is the astounding super dupe in post #1480 acknowledging that MaObama has tons of policies and unconstitutionally ruled by executive fiat, but that those policies (which he previously claimed didn’t exist, mind you) were “intelligent solutions”.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So could we have some examples of these terrible regulations that caused nothing in reality but intelligent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> solutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what is known as being a “partisan hack”. Always moving the goalposts rather than simply accepting what you believed was wrong.
Click to expand...

Those regulations don't meet the definition of policy, since any major policies were blocked by the GOP for eight years. Except for the stimulus and ObamaCare. Give me an example of any of those regulations that rise to the level of policy, brain-dead d******...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.
> 
> 
> 
> He constitutionally leveraged Executive Orders to roll back all of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders which implemented regulations detrimental to the economy.
> 
> He also signed a massive tax cut.
> 
> The fact that you are ignorant of all of these realities is why you shouldn’t be here discussing these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trend was upward, regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...it was “upwards” thanks to Republicans controlling _everything_ around the nation and implementing proven conservative policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mainly blocking tried-and-true Solutions Obama wanted
Click to expand...

So you just admitted that the “solutions” aren’t “tried-and-true” but rather *failed*. Because the Republicans blocked them (what they could anyway) and our entire recovery occured under Republican control.

Thank you!


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Those regulations don't meet the definition of policy...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Those regulations don't meet the definition of policy...


What “definition” to they “meet” then? Why did MaObama unconstitutionally implement those regulations if they weren’t _his_ policies?


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those regulations don't meet the definition of policy...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233792
Click to expand...

all you jackass doops go on and on about horrible regulations and can't give a single example. Idiot.


----------



## cutter

francoHFW said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps higher unemployment, lower taxed, less dependence on food stamps, booming economy, 3+% growth rate, manufacturing jobs returning, like obama said wolud never happen, public optimism about our economy. And you think it’s just like obama? What are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does help people's Outlook when Fox Rush Etc and the rest of the GOP BS propaganda machine stops bad-mouthing everything that's going on no matter what. They and dupes like you are a disgrace... Everything you mentioned is just a continuation of Obama's economy or else just b******* propaganda...
Click to expand...

I guess I forgot to thank obama for rolling back all those unnecessary regulations that discourage new businesses, cutting taxes that bruoght manufacturing back that he said would never come back not even with. Magic wand, making America oil independent by allowing drilling on federal land. I guess I just missed all that. Thanks obama for giving us Trump.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Funny how all of your propaganda machine's phony scandals have gone absolutely nowhere the last 30 years...


That’s exactly what you duped dimwits said about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. That certainly went somewhere. Slick Willy admitted all of it. It was all 100% *fact*. And you duped dimwits called it a “vast right-wing conspiracy”.


----------



## danielpalos

cutter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama averaged fewest executive orders since Cleveland - Pew Research Center
> Pew Research Center › 2017/01/23
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...and he did that to dupe all of his ignorant minions - like _you_. Instead, he issued everything under “Presidential Memorandums”.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum *more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action *even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts. They are a bitch for the ignorant left.
> 
> Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us some examples of memoranda that caused all these economic problems... LOL. Actually Obama's economy was basically exactly the same as trump's without a trillion dollar tax cut for nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps higher unemployment, lower taxed, less dependence on food stamps, booming economy, 3+% growth rate, manufacturing jobs returning, like obama said wolud never happen, public optimism about our economy. And you think it’s just like obama? What are you smoking?
Click to expand...

The Trend was up not down.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> normal market trends.  what actual policies did Your guy put into place.
> 
> 
> 
> He constitutionally leveraged Executive Orders to roll back all of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders which implemented regulations detrimental to the economy.
> 
> He also signed a massive tax cut.
> 
> The fact that you are ignorant of all of these realities is why you shouldn’t be here discussing these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trend was upward, regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...it was “upwards” thanks to Republicans controlling _everything_ around the nation and implementing proven conservative policy.
Click to expand...

you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> View attachment 233797


That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
Click to expand...


Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".

1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
2. What is your source for that number? An actual link. 

Or stop saying it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
Click to expand...

look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> all you jackass doops go on and on about horrible regulations and can't give a *single* example. Idiot.


Here is a *single* example, snowflake. And it is a perfect example.


> The Obama administration on Friday ordered a moratorium on new leases for coal mined from federal lands as part of a sweeping review of the government’s management of vast amounts of taxpayer-owned coal throughout the West.


The result of this highly unconstitutional action?

I. Created unaffordable energy prices
II. Negative impact on jobs
III. Which in turn has a negative impact on tax revenues

It’s bad all the way around and it’s why we’ve seen an exponentially better economy under *President* *Trump* and the Republicans than we did under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And this is just one example of _hundreds_. So much for your ignorant claim that MaObama “had no policies”. He did. They were all just really bad.

Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
Click to expand...

Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!

Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
Click to expand...


So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.


If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you jackass doops go on and on about horrible regulations and can't give a *single* example. Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a *single* example, snowflake. And it is a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration on Friday ordered a moratorium on new leases for coal mined from federal lands as part of a sweeping review of the government’s management of vast amounts of taxpayer-owned coal throughout the West.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The result of this highly unconstitutional action?
> 
> I. Created unaffordable energy prices
> II. Negative impact on jobs
> III. Which in turn has a negative impact on tax revenues
> 
> It’s bad all the way around and it’s why we’ve seen an exponentially better economy under *President* *Trump* and the Republicans than we did under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And this is just one example of _hundreds_. So much for your ignorant claim that MaObama “had no policies”. He did. They were all just really bad.
> 
> Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases
Click to expand...

Good, there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land, and none of it is important for the economy.there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you jackass doops go on and on about horrible regulations and can't give a *single* example. Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a *single* example, snowflake. And it is a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration on Friday ordered a moratorium on new leases for coal mined from federal lands as part of a sweeping review of the government’s management of vast amounts of taxpayer-owned coal throughout the West.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The result of this highly unconstitutional action?
> 
> I. Created unaffordable energy prices
> II. Negative impact on jobs
> III. Which in turn has a negative impact on tax revenues
> 
> It’s bad all the way around and it’s why we’ve seen an exponentially better economy under *President* *Trump* and the Republicans than we did under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And this is just one example of _hundreds_. So much for your ignorant claim that MaObama “had no policies”. He did. They were all just really bad.
> 
> Obama announces moratorium on new federal coal leases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land, and none of it is important for the economy.there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.
Click to expand...

Too bad Hillary wasn't elected, she would have helped West Virginians Etc get trained for new technology jobs so, now we still have 6 million going unfilled...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Good


I rest my case. You responded exactly as I predicted you would. You denied everything. Once I proved it and you could no longer deny it, then you simply declare that anything Obama did was “good”.


francoHFW said:


> there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land


Uh...why does the federal government even own “federal land”? The U.S. Constitution *never* authorized them to steal lands from the state and make it federal.


francoHFW said:


> and none of it is important for the economy.


All of it is vital to the economy, stupid. It’s basic Supply & Demand.


francoHFW said:


> there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now


Because of unconstitutional government intervention. The federal government isn’t empowered to pick winners and losers. That is supposed to be done by the consumers of the free market.


francoHFW said:


> and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.


Exactly. Before, we had no competition. We were the elite of the elite. In typical Dumbocrat fahsion, MaObama lowered the bar (and thus lowered our standard of living) and now we have to compete with shit-hole communists states like China. Thankfully though, *President* *Trump* is fixin that. God Bless President Trump.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

I think I'll go with our justice system and judges over bought off High School grad right-wing pundits, thanks oh, as to what is unconstitutional and illegal. How is lockherup coming, super duper. Or any other Democrat you people have convicted in your brain such as it is...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Too bad Hillary wasn't elected, she would have helped West Virginians Etc get trained for new technology jobs so


So you’re admitting she would have acted unconstitutionally and you’re disappointed that she didn’t get the opportunity to do so? Wow, man. Wow. The U.S. Constitution does not empower the federal government to “train” citizens. Idiot.


francoHFW said:


> now we still have 6 million going unfilled...


We have many job openings thanks to President Trump and the Republicans! And the free market will flawlessly handle all of them.

Do you know what will happen with those “6 million” tech jobs you claim exist? Salaries will skyrocket as companies compete to land the talent capable of filling them. That wouldn’t have happened had Hitlery Clinton take the action you are advocating. Again...this proves you are an idiot.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> I think I'll go with our justice system and judges over bought off High School grad right-wing pundits, thanks oh, as to what is unconstitutional and illegal


Well _you_ have to. You’re not informed/educated enough to determine it yourself. But the rest of us who have actually read the U.S. Constitution don’t need someone else to affirm it for us.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unemployment rate was already about 8% when ARRA went into effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then MaObama was extra stupid for “promising” that unemployment would never hit 8% if we passed his absurd “stimulus package”.
Click to expand...

Why would that make him stupid when the unemployment rate was 6% when he said that? Was he supposed to know it would sky rocket to 8% by the time it was passed by Congress and put into effect?

These are rhetorical questions, Buttplug. I don’t expect someone as dumb as you, who actually said Obama lost 10 million jobs since 2007 (he wasn’t even president until 2009), to have even a clue what you’re talking about.


----------



## hadit

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.
Click to expand...


Well, at least you stopped saying it for a while. Let's see how long that lasts.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!
> 
> Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.
Click to expand...

I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.
Click to expand...

It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!
> 
> Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...


But you ARE the one who keeps using that same phrase over and over again to justify the fact that you want to be paid for not working. So, here's your chance to define what you're saying. What is the number and what is your source for that number?

Then we can debate whether it's applicable or if you're just spouting off nonsense.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 233797
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.
Click to expand...


I made a simple request. What is this number you keep talking about and where did you get it?

Why "rebut" something that may not even have any meaning?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
Click to expand...


What's the number and where did you get it?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!
> 
> Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you ARE the one who keeps using that same phrase over and over again to justify the fact that you want to be paid for not working. So, here's your chance to define what you're saying. What is the number and what is your source for that number?
> 
> Then we can debate whether it's applicable or if you're just spouting off nonsense.
Click to expand...

Who cares about right wing morals. 

We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we have a have a _Natural_ rate of Unemployment, for Capitalists' bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a simple request. What is this number you keep talking about and where did you get it?
> 
> Why "rebut" something that may not even have any meaning?
Click to expand...

Anyone who wants to have any understanding of economics whatsoever, should look into the concepts involved.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the number and where did you get it?
Click to expand...

A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the number and where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.
Click to expand...

What is the number and what is the name of the book?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just made it up and really don't mean anything when you say it. You say it, define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It Must be the "gospel Truth" if you don't have a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a simple request. What is this number you keep talking about and where did you get it?
> 
> Why "rebut" something that may not even have any meaning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who wants to have any understanding of economics whatsoever, should look into the concepts involved.
Click to expand...

You talk about a number, what is it?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, time to step up. You keep saying, "natural rate of unemployment".
> 
> 1. What is that rate? The actual number, not another meaningless phrase.
> 2. What is your source for that number? An actual link.
> 
> Or stop saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> look into it yourself, or stop saying you know anything about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahahahahahaha! Daniel makes shit up and then panics when someone calls him out on it. Well done hadit!
> 
> Daniel...you’re the one who keeps making the claim. If you know, you should give the answer. You just got bent over son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you ARE the one who keeps using that same phrase over and over again to justify the fact that you want to be paid for not working. So, here's your chance to define what you're saying. What is the number and what is your source for that number?
> 
> Then we can debate whether it's applicable or if you're just spouting off nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares about right wing morals.
> 
> We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a 'natural rate of unemployment'.  What is the number and what is your source?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the number and where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the number and what is the name of the book?
Click to expand...

nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the number and where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the number and what is the name of the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.
Click to expand...

You're stalling and trying to divert.  Stick to the question.  What is the natural rate of unemployment and what is your source?  Post that for discussion, because if you won't, all you're doing is repeating something that doesn't really apply.


----------



## danielpalos

Full employment of capital resources is what we are discussing.  Capital Must circulate not Labor to engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the number and where did you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the number and what is the name of the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're stalling and trying to divert.  Stick to the question.  What is the natural rate of unemployment and what is your source?  Post that for discussion, because if you won't, all you're doing is repeating something that doesn't really apply.
Click to expand...

why not acquire and possess a definition you subscribe to and are willing to discuss.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the number and where did you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the number and what is the name of the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're stalling and trying to divert.  Stick to the question.  What is the natural rate of unemployment and what is your source?  Post that for discussion, because if you won't, all you're doing is repeating something that doesn't really apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not acquire and possess a definition you subscribe to and are willing to discuss.
Click to expand...

Because I'm not the one using the phrase.  You are, so you define what you mean by it.  You got it out of book?  Fine, post the name and author of the book, and quote the section you got it from.  You've been saying it for a long time, over and over again, so what do you mean by it?


----------



## joaquinmiller

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case. You responded exactly as I predicted you would. You denied everything. Once I proved it and you could no longer deny it, then you simply declare that anything Obama did was “good”.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's plenty of coal that is not on Federal Land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...why does the federal government even own “federal land”? The U.S. Constitution *never* authorized them to steal lands from the state and make it federal.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and none of it is important for the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of it is vital to the economy, stupid. It’s basic Supply & Demand.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are more people employed in alternate energy than in gas and coal combined now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of unconstitutional government intervention. The federal government isn’t empowered to pick winners and losers. That is supposed to be done by the consumers of the free market.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we are competing with China and the EU, which we were not before Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Before, we had no competition. We were the elite of the elite. In typical Dumbocrat fahsion, MaObama lowered the bar (and thus lowered our standard of living) and now we have to compete with shit-hole communists states like China. Thankfully though, *President* *Trump* is fixin that. God Bless President Trump.
Click to expand...


United States Constitution (Article Four, section 3, clause 2)

When the US bought Alaska, or made the Louisiana Purchase, or conquered and took California, who do you think owned the land?  The US didn't steal lands from States - many of which were Federal territories long before they became States.  In many cases, it did purchase lands from individual states.

Are you arguing from a position of Hate-Radio ignorance?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A book on Economics.  I don't need to Gossip, like right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the number and what is the name of the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're stalling and trying to divert.  Stick to the question.  What is the natural rate of unemployment and what is your source?  Post that for discussion, because if you won't, all you're doing is repeating something that doesn't really apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not acquire and possess a definition you subscribe to and are willing to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm not the one using the phrase.  You are, so you define what you mean by it.  You got it out of book?  Fine, post the name and author of the book, and quote the section you got it from.  You've been saying it for a long time, over and over again, so what do you mean by it?
Click to expand...

because it is an economic term; usually, we just quibble about it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the number and what is the name of the book?
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're stalling and trying to divert.  Stick to the question.  What is the natural rate of unemployment and what is your source?  Post that for discussion, because if you won't, all you're doing is repeating something that doesn't really apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not acquire and possess a definition you subscribe to and are willing to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm not the one using the phrase.  You are, so you define what you mean by it.  You got it out of book?  Fine, post the name and author of the book, and quote the section you got it from.  You've been saying it for a long time, over and over again, so what do you mean by it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because it is an economic term; usually, we just quibble about it.
Click to expand...

So, to recap, you use a phrase that should easily be quantifiable, yet you will not define it or tell us where you got it from.

THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY ON ECONOMIC ISSUES.  Do you get that?  Whenever I see you use that phrase, you can expect me to ask again what is the number and where did you get it.


----------



## joaquinmiller

It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.

Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds

The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.


The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.


* Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:



* Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
* Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.


*Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.


----------



## joaquinmiller

joaquinmiller said:


> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.



Surplus unemployment is a component of Frictional and Structural Unemployment.  It is differentiated to carry negative connotations, and it assumes facts not in evidence.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stalling and trying to divert.  Stick to the question.  What is the natural rate of unemployment and what is your source?  Post that for discussion, because if you won't, all you're doing is repeating something that doesn't really apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not acquire and possess a definition you subscribe to and are willing to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm not the one using the phrase.  You are, so you define what you mean by it.  You got it out of book?  Fine, post the name and author of the book, and quote the section you got it from.  You've been saying it for a long time, over and over again, so what do you mean by it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because it is an economic term; usually, we just quibble about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, to recap, you use a phrase that should easily be quantifiable, yet you will not define it or tell us where you got it from.
> 
> THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY ON ECONOMIC ISSUES.  Do you get that?  Whenever I see you use that phrase, you can expect me to ask again what is the number and where did you get it.
Click to expand...

Anyone who knows Any given Thing about Economics, knows those terms.


----------



## danielpalos

joaquinmiller said:


> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.


Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.
Click to expand...

What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.
Click to expand...

did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.
Click to expand...


That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?
Click to expand...

Post your definition so we can quibble.  I don't make excuses.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "easily quantifiable", because it's not fixed.  It can be quantified as fluctuating within a narrow range.
> 
> Why Zero Unemployment Isn't as Good as It Sounds
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural, and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates this rate to be between 4.5 percent and 5 percent. Both fiscal and monetary policymakers use that rate as the goal of full employment. They use 2 percent as the target inflation rate. They also consider the ideal gross domestic product growth rate to be between 2 percent and 3 percent. They must try to balance these three goals when setting interest rates. The Fed encourages Congress to consider all three goals when setting tax rates or spending levels.
> 
> 
> * Three Components of the Natural Rate of Unemployment *
> Even in a healthy economy, there is some level of unemployment for three reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> * Frictional Unemployment* – Some workers are in between jobs. Examples are new graduates looking for their first job. Others are workers who move to a new town without lining up another position. Some people quit abruptly, knowing they'll get a better job shortly. Still, others might decide to leave the workforce for personal reasons such as retirement, pregnancy, or sickness. They drop out of the labor force. When they return and start looking again, the BEA counts them as unemployed.
> * Structural Unemployment* – As the economy evolves, there is an unavoidable mismatch between workers' job skills and employers' needs. It happens when workers are displaced by technology, as when robots take over manufacturing jobs. It also occurs when factories move to cheaper locations. That's what happened after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. When baby boomers reached their 30s and had fewer children, there was less need for daycare workers. Structural unemployment remains until workers receive new training.
> 
> 
> *Surplus Unemployment* – This occurs whenever the government intervenes with minimum wage laws or wage/price controls. It can also happen with unions. Why? Employers must pay the mandated wage while keeping within their payroll budget. The only way to do this is to let some workers go. It's the consequence of an unfunded mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post your definition so we can quibble.  I don't make excuses.
Click to expand...


I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism to generate a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post your definition so we can quibble.  I don't make excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.
Click to expand...

You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I am not the one claiming I have a valid argument with nothing but an appeal to ignorance.


No...instead you’re claiming to have a “valid” argument built entirely on ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys still have nothing but repeal to go with your tax cut economics.
> 
> 
> 
> If you left-wing lunatics would stop engaging in unconstitutional actions, we wouldn’t have to “repeal”. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then why does the “right-wing” control the White House, the Senate, and the majority of the states? _Oops_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.


It’s *not* *market* friendly if they *government* pays for it, you dolt.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.


The dumbest dolt on USMB continues to confuse the difference between political (such as government) and economics (such as the free market).

I’ve explained it to him hundreds of times but he’s just not bright enough to catch on.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> nothing but diversion?  why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.


Everyone sees you avoiding the question, running, and trolling. That’s why you have 0 credibility on USMB. Sad.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Full employment of capital resources is what we are discussing.  *Capital Must circulate *not Labor* to engender a positive multiplier *effect upon our economy.



That’s simply not true. And even people who barely know anything about economics know that much. The problem is, you’re a young kid and you think that using certain words makes you sound “smart”. But you misuse all of them and it shows you are actually stupid.

There is *no* “positive multiplier effect” from capitals circulating. If that were even remotely true, all we would have to do is have everyone in America pass $1,000 to their neighbors to the right of them and magically our economy would skyrocket.

Of course, even the dumbest among us realizes how laughable and ridiculous that is.


----------



## P@triot

joaquinmiller said:


> When the US bought Alaska...who do you think owned the land?


Um...Russia. 


joaquinmiller said:


> or made the Louisiana Purchase...who do you think owned the land?


Um...France. 

Holy shit are you one dumb little monkey. You think states owned those and the federal government bought/took them from the states?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Post your definition so we can quibble.  I don't make excuses.


Why are you asking hadit to “define” phrases and concepts that you keep using and posting?!? 

He’s asking you to clarify your (outrageous) claims. If your claims are true, it should be very easy for you to clarify the information. So why are you struggling?


----------



## nat4900

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



Notice how "republican" [sic] Clinton is praised in that video?


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


Wow, an 80% decrease. Thank you President Clinton.


----------



## P@triot

nat4900 said:


> Notice how "republican" [sic] Clinton is praised in that video?


Notice how nat4900 has to bring extreme partisan ship into _every_ post in his attempt to troll and divide?


----------



## danielpalos

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that will solve simple poverty.  It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.  

Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the natural rate?  Give a number and explain why it's significant.  Hint, it should be really easy for you.
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post your definition so we can quibble.  I don't make excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.
Click to expand...


It's obvious that you have no idea what it is, or that you don't want to say what it is because we're currently under it and you have no valid reason to force the taxpayers to pay you for not working. If you did know what it was, you'd define it for discussion. 

The sad thing is, you will just pop up and repeat this whole thing all over again as if it was significant. 

So, here's your last chance.  What's the number?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that will solve simple poverty.  It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.
> 
> Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.



That didn't take long. Without meaningless phrases, what do you have?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you miss the previous post?  the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post your definition so we can quibble.  I don't make excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you have no idea what it is, or that you don't want to say what it is because we're currently under it and you have no valid reason to force the taxpayers to pay you for not working. If you did know what it was, you'd define it for discussion.
> 
> The sad thing is, you will just pop up and repeat this whole thing all over again as if it was significant.
> 
> So, here's your last chance.  What's the number?
Click to expand...

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment that is a natural rate of inefficiency under socialism.  The number doesn't matter because the right wing could not even give the federal civilian work force a raise, regardless.

Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that will solve simple poverty.  It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.
> 
> Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That didn't take long. Without meaningless phrases, what do you have?
Click to expand...

they are not meaningless; you merely have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid rebuttals.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.


Yes it does. It assures the lazy, the heroin addict, the criminal, etc. remain unemployed as there is no room for them in a civilized society.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that will solve simple poverty.  It is more cost effective than means tested welfare. *Capitalism*; What is that, sayeth the right wing.


One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.

You’re literally so stupid, that you don’t even know how stupid you are. You actually believe you can spew communist nonsense and convince people it is “capitalism”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.


As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?

Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> Thank you President Clinton.


Um....Faun (Over Men)? I hate to shatter your alternate sense of reality, but Hitlery *lost* the election. She got her ass kicked by *President* *Trump*. She never became “President Clinton”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is *more* *cost* *effective*.


What reliable study has made _that_ claim?!?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It assures the lazy, the heroin addict, the criminal, etc. remain unemployed as there is no room for them in a civilized society.
Click to expand...

stop whining about the cost of social services, then; right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that will solve simple poverty.  It is more cost effective than means tested welfare. *Capitalism*; What is that, sayeth the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.
> 
> You’re literally so stupid, that you don’t even know how stupid you are. You actually believe you can spew communist nonsense and convince people it is “capitalism”.
Click to expand...

So what; the right wing believes trade wars are capitalism.  Nobody takes them seriously in any serious discussion.  Only the affirmative action of the franchise.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?
> 
> Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.
Click to expand...

They are economic concepts.  Only the right wing, appeals to ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is *more* *cost* *effective*.
> 
> 
> 
> What reliable study has made _that_ claim?!?
Click to expand...

it is simpler and more cost effective than means tested welfare as a result.  Compensation for a Capital phenomenon is market friendly.   Means testing is not.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.
> 
> 
> 
> So what;
Click to expand...

Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.

Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.
> 
> 
> 
> So what;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.
> 
> Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.
Click to expand...

the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?
> 
> Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are economic concepts.
Click to expand...

Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you *can’t* provide sources for and statistics that you *can’t* provide numbers for.

And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is *more* *cost* *effective*.
> 
> 
> 
> What reliable study has made _that_ claim?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is simpler and more cost effective than means tested welfare as a result.
Click to expand...

Yo...Joseph Goebbels...repeating your statement after being asked for proof doesn’t serve as a source.

So I will ask you again....what reliable study made that claim?!? It’s a simple question. Why can’t you provide a link to it?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.


If it’s a “fact” you should have absolutely no problem providing us with the exact number for that “natural rate”. And yet you’ve been asked for months and you’re unable to produce it.

Game over.


----------



## hadit

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is *more* *cost* *effective*.
> 
> 
> 
> What reliable study has made _that_ claim?!?
Click to expand...


The one he imagined.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.
> 
> 
> 
> So what;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.
> 
> Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.
Click to expand...


And what is that rate?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?
> 
> Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are economic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you *can’t* provide sources for and statistics that you *can’t* provide numbers for.
> 
> And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!
Click to expand...

Government statistics can work.  It is Natural for capitalism to be inefficient.  Socialism can bail out capitalism for that.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is *more* *cost* *effective*.
> 
> 
> 
> What reliable study has made _that_ claim?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is simpler and more cost effective than means tested welfare as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo...Joseph Goebbels...repeating your statement after being asked for proof doesn’t serve as a source.
> 
> So I will ask you again....what reliable study made that claim?!? It’s a simple question. Why can’t you provide a link to it?
Click to expand...

it should be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.
> 
> 
> 
> If it’s a “fact” you should have absolutely no problem providing us with the exact number for that “natural rate”. And yet you’ve been asked for months and you’re unable to produce it.
> 
> Game over.
Click to expand...

anyone who knows Any given Thing about economics, knows that concept.  you have no valid argument only diversion, like usual for the clueless and Causeless right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.
> 
> 
> 
> So what;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.
> 
> Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that rate?
Click to expand...

more than zero.  Capitalism really is, That inefficient.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem: having the government pay people to *not* work is *not* “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down _hilarious_.
> 
> 
> 
> So what;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.
> 
> Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more than zero.  Capitalism really is, That inefficient.
Click to expand...


Less than 100? More?

Maybe you should just guess.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what;
> 
> 
> 
> Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.
> 
> Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more than zero.  Capitalism really is, That inefficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than 100? More?
> 
> Maybe you should just guess.
Click to expand...

whatever it is, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?
> 
> Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are economic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you *can’t* provide sources for and statistics that you *can’t* provide numbers for.
> 
> And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government statistics can work.  It is Natural for capitalism to be inefficient.  Socialism can bail out capitalism for that.
Click to expand...

Too late. You’ve had weeks to provide even a single link to your claims. You’re failure to provide said links is indisputable proof that you made it all up. Unacceptable.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *whatever* *it* *is*, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,


How can you propose a solution for something if you can’t even identify the problem?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> more than zero.  Capitalism really is, That inefficient.


Why is more than zero “inefficient” in your mind? A rational person would argue that capitalism is SO efficient, it produces a rather high number of unemployed because not as many people are required to produce a product (driving up supply while driving down cost).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it *should* be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.


Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> you have no valid argument only diversion...


Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim? 


> 5. *He who asserts must prove. *In order to establish an assertion, the team must support *it with enough evidence and logic *to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. *Facts must be accurate. *Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.


Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?
> 
> Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are economic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you *can’t* provide sources for and statistics that you *can’t* provide numbers for.
> 
> And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government statistics can work.  It is Natural for capitalism to be inefficient.  Socialism can bail out capitalism for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late. You’ve had weeks to provide even a single link to your claims. You’re failure to provide said links is indisputable proof that you made it all up. Unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I don't appeal to ignorance.  The term exists.  Why not look it up.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whatever* *it* *is*, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,
> 
> 
> 
> How can you propose a solution for something if you can’t even identify the problem?
Click to expand...

it is Natural for Capitalism not Socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> more than zero.  Capitalism really is, That inefficient.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is more than zero “inefficient” in your mind? A rational person would argue that capitalism is SO efficient, it produces a rather high number of unemployed because not as many people are required to produce a product (driving up supply while driving down cost).
Click to expand...

It is an inefficiency and drag on our market based economy.  We should have no homeless on our streets.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it *should* be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?
Click to expand...

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no valid argument only diversion...
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *He who asserts must prove. *In order to establish an assertion, the team must support *it with enough evidence and logic *to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. *Facts must be accurate. *Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.
> 
> Rules of debate
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.
> 
> Prime example of why *nobody* takes the left seriously about _anything_.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to.  Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is that rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more than zero.  Capitalism really is, That inefficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than 100? More?
> 
> Maybe you should just guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever it is, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,
Click to expand...


At least you're admitting you don't know. Now, if you could only understand how not knowing what it is completely undercuts how you're trying to use it...


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?
> 
> Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> They are economic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you *can’t* provide sources for and statistics that you *can’t* provide numbers for.
> 
> And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government statistics can work.  It is Natural for capitalism to be inefficient.  Socialism can bail out capitalism for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late. You’ve had weeks to provide even a single link to your claims. You’re failure to provide said links is indisputable proof that you made it all up. Unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't appeal to ignorance.  The term exists.  Why not look it up.
Click to expand...


Because you bring it up, over and over again. You use it to try to boost your claim to the fruit of other peoples' labor, over and over again. So define it and defend how it applies to what you assert.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no valid argument only diversion...
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *He who asserts must prove. *In order to establish an assertion, the team must support *it with enough evidence and logic *to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. *Facts must be accurate. *Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.
> 
> Rules of debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.
Click to expand...


That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it *should* be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.
Click to expand...


Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no valid argument only diversion...
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *He who asserts must prove. *In order to establish an assertion, the team must support *it with enough evidence and logic *to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. *Facts must be accurate. *Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.
> 
> Rules of debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.
Click to expand...

the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it *should* be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.
Click to expand...

I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no valid argument only diversion...
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *He who asserts must prove. *In order to establish an assertion, the team must support *it with enough evidence and logic *to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. *Facts must be accurate. *Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.
> 
> Rules of debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it *should* be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.
Click to expand...


You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no valid argument only diversion...
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. *He who asserts must prove. *In order to establish an assertion, the team must support *it with enough evidence and logic *to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. *Facts must be accurate. *Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.
> 
> Rules of debate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Then, why the problem with solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it *should* be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.
Click to expand...

let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here: 
Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
> Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.
> 
> Rules of debate
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why the problem with solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
Click to expand...


You don't even know what that is, so why are you yammering about it ad nauseum?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Key word here: _should_. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?
> 
> 
> 
> it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here:
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?

Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless.  Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here:
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?
> 
> Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.
Click to expand...

That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses. 

The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here:
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?
> 
> Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.
> 
> The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.
Click to expand...


More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't. 

Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make excuses.  I understand the concept or ask questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here:
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?
> 
> Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.
> 
> The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.
> 
> Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.
Click to expand...

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here:
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?
> 
> Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.
> 
> The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.
> 
> Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.
Click to expand...


And again, what's the rate?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> And, I happen to know these concepts...


No you don’t. You just said socialism is “the power to do _something_”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should have no homeless.


Says _who_? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people _choose_ to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's start here.  most people understand these concepts here:
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?
> 
> Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.
> 
> The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.
> 
> Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, what's the rate?
Click to expand...

How many homeless?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> Says _who_? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people _choose_ to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.
Click to expand...

charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> Says _who_? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people _choose_ to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.
Click to expand...

Nobody asked that. Why do you avoid simple and direct questions in every post? Because they prove you are clueless.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?


No, snowflake. We are for the *free* *market*. Which flawlessly balances itself with competition that results in the perfect and proper wages for _everyone_, innovation, efficient production, and affordable products.

The polar opposite of what idiotic left-wing policy produces.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I don't appeal to ignorance.


No...but apparently ignorance appeals to _you_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whatever* *it* *is*, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,
> 
> 
> 
> How can you propose a solution for something if you can’t even identify the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Natural for Capitalism not Socialism.
Click to expand...

Nobody asked that. Your refusal to answer a simple question proves you made it all up. Game over.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?
> 
> Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.
> 
> The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.
> 
> Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, what's the rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many homeless?
Click to expand...

Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour?  Never go full amateur hour.  I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> Says _who_? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people _choose_ to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody asked that. Why do you avoid simple and direct questions in every post? Because they prove you are clueless.
Click to expand...

who would be homeless if they could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?
> 
> 
> 
> No, snowflake. We are for the *free* *market*. Which flawlessly balances itself with competition that results in the perfect and proper wages for _everyone_, innovation, efficient production, and affordable products.
> 
> The polar opposite of what idiotic left-wing policy produces.
Click to expand...

walls and trade wars are Not, free market.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> No...but apparently ignorance appeals to _you_.
Click to expand...

I resort to the fewest fallacies for that.  

Unlike the Right Wing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *whatever* *it* *is*, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,
> 
> 
> 
> How can you propose a solution for something if you can’t even identify the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Natural for Capitalism not Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody asked that. Your refusal to answer a simple question proves you made it all up. Game over.
Click to expand...

Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.  Who's fault is it, the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the concept the whole the time.  I don't make excuses.  And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.
> 
> The Point is, it Happens.  Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.
> 
> Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, what's the rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour?  Never go full amateur hour.  I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.
Click to expand...

We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.
> 
> Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, what's the rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour?  Never go full amateur hour.  I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
Click to expand...


Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you President Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> Um....Faun (Over Men)? I hate to shatter your alternate sense of reality, but Hitlery *lost* the election. She got her ass kicked by *President* *Trump*. She never became “President Clinton”.
Click to expand...

Which is why I thanked President Clinton and not Hillary. That you even refer to her has “Hitlery” shows you have the mentality of a 4 year old and that she still lives rent free in your head.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty.  We should have no homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, what's the rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour?  Never go full amateur hour.  I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, what's the rate?
> 
> 
> 
> How many homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour?  Never go full amateur hour.  I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.
Click to expand...


Yet you keep coming up with them.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour?  Never go full amateur hour.  I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you keep coming up with them.
Click to expand...

We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> who would be homeless if they could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


The entire U.S. would end up homeless. Paying people not to work would result in the second Great Depression.

You’re inability to understand even basic economics is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else for that matter).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.


You already said that in post #1601 you redundant buffoon. And as I stated in post #1604: Says _who_? Where is that written?

How long you want to do this dance for? All you’re doing is embarrassing yourself as _everyone_ can see you’ve been thoroughly defeated. You’ve been proven wrong. You’re unable to support any of your claims. And when challenged on a statement, you resort to repeating the statement rather than supporting it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.


It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:

Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!

The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!

Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> That you even refer to her has “Hitlery” shows you have the mentality of a 4 year old and that she still lives rent free in your head.


Well...she needs to live “rent free” _somewhere_ since the American people refuse to give her a job!


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you even refer to her has “Hitlery” shows you have the mentality of a 4 year old and that she still lives rent free in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...she needs to live “rent free” _somewhere_ since the American people refuse to give her a job!
Click to expand...

I’m pretty certain she’s wealthy without a job now. Still, she haunts your 4 year old mind.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> who would be homeless if they could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> The entire U.S. would end up homeless. Paying people not to work would result in the second Great Depression.
> 
> You’re inability to understand even basic economics is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else for that matter).
Click to expand...

that only works in right wing fantasy.  Capitalism works everywhere else.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that in post #1601 you redundant buffoon. And as I stated in post #1604: Says _who_? Where is that written?
> 
> How long you want to do this dance for? All you’re doing is embarrassing yourself as _everyone_ can see you’ve been thoroughly defeated. You’ve been proven wrong. You’re unable to support any of your claims. And when challenged on a statement, you resort to repeating the statement rather than supporting it.
Click to expand...

it should be a self-evident truth under any form of Capitalism.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
Click to expand...

Capitalism works.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> who would be homeless if they could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> The entire U.S. would end up homeless. Paying people not to work would result in the second Great Depression.
> 
> You’re inability to understand even basic economics is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that only works in right wing fantasy.  Capitalism works everywhere else.
Click to expand...

Except that we already established that it’s *not* “capitalism” for the government to pay people not to work.

Seriously...how many times are you going to make that mistake?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that in post #1601 you redundant buffoon. And as I stated in post #1604: Says _who_? Where is that written?
> 
> How long you want to do this dance for? All you’re doing is embarrassing yourself as _everyone_ can see you’ve been thoroughly defeated. You’ve been proven wrong. You’re unable to support any of your claims. And when challenged on a statement, you resort to repeating the statement rather than supporting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it should be a self-evident truth under any form of Capitalism
Click to expand...

Except that, that’s not “capitalism”


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism works.
Click to expand...

Now that is true. Capitalism does work. The problem is, you keep pitching communism under the guise of “capitalism”. Only the left is that stupid, snowflake. Conservatives know communism when they see it. The government paying people not to work is *not* “capitalism”. It’s not even close.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> who would be homeless if they could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> The entire U.S. would end up homeless. Paying people not to work would result in the second Great Depression.
> 
> You’re inability to understand even basic economics is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that only works in right wing fantasy.  Capitalism works everywhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that we already established that it’s *not* “capitalism” for the government to pay people not to work.
> 
> Seriously...how many times are you going to make that mistake?
Click to expand...

full employment of resources is merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that in post #1601 you redundant buffoon. And as I stated in post #1604: Says _who_? Where is that written?
> 
> How long you want to do this dance for? All you’re doing is embarrassing yourself as _everyone_ can see you’ve been thoroughly defeated. You’ve been proven wrong. You’re unable to support any of your claims. And when challenged on a statement, you resort to repeating the statement rather than supporting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it should be a self-evident truth under any form of Capitalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that, that’s not “capitalism”
Click to expand...

How many homeless would we have, if a person could simply ask for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that is true. Capitalism does work. The problem is, you keep pitching communism under the guise of “capitalism”. Only the left is that stupid, snowflake. Conservatives know communism when they see it. The government paying people not to work is *not* “capitalism”. It’s not even close.
Click to expand...

inequality is not better.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism works.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


Then you argue against it...


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism works.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you argue against it...
Click to expand...

Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.  Capitalism won't know the difference Because it will be an externality.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism works.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you argue against it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.  Capitalism won't know the difference Because it will be an externality.
Click to expand...


It's not Capitalism is the point. Once again you say words that don't mean what you want them to mean. 

Getting paid though never having a job and never intending to have a job is not unemployment compensation. 

Forcibly extracting money from those who earned it to give it to those who did nothing to earn it (though they could) is not Capitalism.

The Group of people who can work and who have jobs available to them yet choose not to work are not part of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment (which you refuse to quantify). 

Your discussions would go a lot better for you if you would use words and their meanings correctly.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ a solution...if you want complete and total economic collapse like Venezuela. Here are some other solutions based on your 6 year old “logic”:
> 
> Bullets kill. So if you want to kill cancer, just shoot the cancer!
> 
> The earth is covered in dirt. If you want to cure famine - just eat dirt!
> 
> Solve the education “gap” by issuing _everyone_ a bachelors degree!
> Yeah...Daniel sure does have the answers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism works.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you argue against it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.  Capitalism won't know the difference Because it will be an externality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not Capitalism is the point. Once again you say words that don't mean what you want them to mean.
> 
> Getting paid though never having a job and never intending to have a job is not unemployment compensation.
> 
> Forcibly extracting money from those who earned it to give it to those who did nothing to earn it (though they could) is not Capitalism.
> 
> The Group of people who can work and who have jobs available to them yet choose not to work are not part of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment (which you refuse to quantify).
> 
> Your discussions would go a lot better for you if you would use words and their meanings correctly.
Click to expand...

externalities are social costs, regardless.  socialism has to account for them.  Government is socialism and can fix Standards as "goal posts" for Capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.


So what is that “natural rate”? If it’s so natural and well known it should be second nature to everybody. And yet, you can’t tell us what it is and you can’t even find it despite scouring the internet for weeks and weeks now.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> How many homeless would we have, if a person could simply ask for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?


As many as we have now. Because a mortgage is *very* expensive and rent isn’t much better (worse in some cases such as Manhattan) and those people would use that money on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and frivolous stuff.

There is a reason they are unemployed in 95% of the cases.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we already established that it’s *not* “capitalism” for the government to pay people not to work.
> 
> Seriously...how many times are you going to make that mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of resources is merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth.
Click to expand...

_Whose_ resources?!? Mine? hadit ’s? Are you under the misguided left-wing impression that you’re somehow entitled to my resources? 

You’re entire schtick has just grown old. We’ve debunked every idiotic thing you’ve said (and when we do that, you post a nonsensical response that has nothing to do with the issue - as you just did here).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism works.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is true. Capitalism does work. The problem is, you keep pitching communism under the guise of “capitalism”. Only the left is that stupid, snowflake. Conservatives know communism when they see it. The government paying people not to work is *not* “capitalism”. It’s not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> inequality is not better.
Click to expand...

And you finally admit you’ve been lying this entire time. Boom. Capitalism doesn’t focus on “equality”. It focuses on making money through innovation, and the delivery of products and services through improved efficiencies.

What you want - like all left-wing idiots - is communism. And this entire time you’ve been pretending to be a capitalist and trying desperately (though terribly) to convince everyone that you’re communist “ideas” were actually capitalism in action.

You’re out of your league here, junior. We all smelled you out in your first post. Your arrogance lead you to believe that you could trick everyone. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> inequality is not better.


There is no “inequality”, snowflake. None. Those with Bill Gates IQ and Bill Gates work ethic get Bill Gates equal success.

The real problem is that you don’t want to put in the equal time and the equal work, but you want the equal results. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Deal with it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Government is socialism


No it isn’t. I already proved you wrong on that. Repeating what you know to not be true isn’t helping your cause any.

(Here is where he desperately wants to post the idiotic “social-ism”  )


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> So what is that “natural rate”? If it’s so natural and well known it should be second nature to everybody. And yet, you can’t tell us what it is and you can’t even find it despite scouring the internet for weeks and weeks now.
Click to expand...

Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia

Why is the onus put upon the Poor?  there should be no impediment to equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many homeless would we have, if a person could simply ask for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> As many as we have now. Because a mortgage is *very* expensive and rent isn’t much better (worse in some cases such as Manhattan) and those people would use that money on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and frivolous stuff.
> 
> There is a reason they are unemployed in 95% of the cases.
Click to expand...

just right wing fantasy?  every guy knows, it merely requires money.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we already established that it’s *not* “capitalism” for the government to pay people not to work.
> 
> Seriously...how many times are you going to make that mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of resources is merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Whose_ resources?!? Mine? hadit ’s? Are you under the misguided left-wing impression that you’re somehow entitled to my resources?
> 
> You’re entire schtick has just grown old. We’ve debunked every idiotic thing you’ve said (and when we do that, you post a nonsensical response that has nothing to do with the issue - as you just did here).
Click to expand...

lol.  quit.  don't whine.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism works.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is true. Capitalism does work. The problem is, you keep pitching communism under the guise of “capitalism”. Only the left is that stupid, snowflake. Conservatives know communism when they see it. The government paying people not to work is *not* “capitalism”. It’s not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> inequality is not better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you finally admit you’ve been lying this entire time. Boom. Capitalism doesn’t focus on “equality”. It focuses on making money through innovation, and the delivery of products and services through improved efficiencies.
> 
> What you want - like all left-wing idiots - is communism. And this entire time you’ve been pretending to be a capitalist and trying desperately (though terribly) to convince everyone that you’re communist “ideas” were actually capitalism in action.
> 
> You’re out of your league here, junior. We all smelled you out in your first post. Your arrogance lead you to believe that you could trick everyone. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
Click to expand...

laws are not capitalism.  neither is Government.  your ignorance is worse.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> inequality is not better.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no “inequality”, snowflake. None. Those with Bill Gates IQ and Bill Gates work ethic get Bill Gates equal success.
> 
> The real problem is that you don’t want to put in the equal time and the equal work, but you want the equal results. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

it is about equality and equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is socialism
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn’t. I already proved you wrong on that. Repeating what you know to not be true isn’t helping your cause any.
> 
> (Here is where he desperately wants to post the idiotic “social-ism”  )
Click to expand...

yes, Government is Socialism.  the Proof is, it can't be Capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> So what is that “natural rate”? If it’s so natural and well known it should be second nature to everybody. And yet, you can’t tell us what it is and you can’t even find it despite scouring the internet for weeks and weeks now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I didn’t ask for a definition, dumb ass. I asked for the *rate*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> yes, Government is Socialism.  the Proof is, it can't be Capitalism.


It can’t be either, you ignorant dolt. Because government *isn’t* an economy. It’s a system for civil structure. It is _political_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> yes, Government is Socialism.  the Proof is, it can't be Capitalism.


And...um...how is _that_ “proof”? 

Left-wing “logic”: if something isn’t “A” then it must be the opposite of “A”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we already established that it’s *not* “capitalism” for the government to pay people not to work.
> 
> Seriously...how many times are you going to make that mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of resources is merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Whose_ resources?!? Mine? hadit ’s? Are you under the misguided left-wing impression that you’re somehow entitled to my resources?
> 
> You’re entire schtick has just grown old. We’ve debunked every idiotic thing you’ve said (and when we do that, you post a nonsensical response that has nothing to do with the issue - as you just did here).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  quit.  don't whine.
Click to expand...

Quit? Is that your answer to everything in life? No wonder you’re a failure. I asked a simple question: *whose* resources? Why can’t you answer?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> every guy knows, it merely requires money.


And every informed citizen knows that we ran out of money decades ago. We’re $21 trillion in debt. We have no money. None.

Why are you so ignorant?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> inequality is not better.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no “inequality”, snowflake. None. Those with Bill Gates IQ and Bill Gates work ethic get Bill Gates equal success.
> 
> The real problem is that you don’t want to put in the equal time and the equal work, but you want the equal results. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

We already have that. The poor is just as “equally protected” under the law as the wealthy. You can’t murder the poor. You can’t rape the poor. You can’t steal from the poor. See? Equal protection.

Why are you so ignorant?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> laws are not capitalism.  neither is Government.


Laws are *not* “socialism” either. Government is *not* “socialism” is either. Socialism is an economic system.

Why are you so ignorant?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> So what is that “natural rate”? If it’s so natural and well known it should be second nature to everybody. And yet, you can’t tell us what it is and you can’t even find it despite scouring the internet for weeks and weeks now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn’t ask for a definition, dumb ass. I asked for the *rate*.
Click to expand...

it doesn't really matter; it is the concept that has to be solved for to simplify Government and its Cost.

self-selection is the most ideal for Individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, Government is Socialism.  the Proof is, it can't be Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> It can’t be either, you ignorant dolt. Because government *isn’t* an economy. It’s a system for civil structure. It is _political_.
Click to expand...

Government is Socialism.  Fixing the goal posts for Capitalism is a function of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, Government is Socialism.  the Proof is, it can't be Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> And...um...how is _that_ “proof”?
> 
> Left-wing “logic”: if something isn’t “A” then it must be the opposite of “A”.
Click to expand...

Capitalism cannot be Government.


----------



## P@triot

For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.


danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.





danielpalos said:


> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.





danielpalos said:


> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.


And here he is right here in this thread claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.


danielpalos said:


> yes, *Government* is Socialism.  the Proof is, it *can't* *be* *Capitalism*.


Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that we already established that it’s *not* “capitalism” for the government to pay people not to work.
> 
> Seriously...how many times are you going to make that mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of resources is merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Whose_ resources?!? Mine? hadit ’s? Are you under the misguided left-wing impression that you’re somehow entitled to my resources?
> 
> You’re entire schtick has just grown old. We’ve debunked every idiotic thing you’ve said (and when we do that, you post a nonsensical response that has nothing to do with the issue - as you just did here).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  quit.  don't whine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit? Is that your answer to everything in life? No wonder you’re a failure. I asked a simple question: *whose* resources? Why can’t you answer?
Click to expand...

national capitalists find capital solutions; national socialists just whine about social problems.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> every guy knows, it merely requires money.
> 
> 
> 
> And every informed citizen knows that we ran out of money decades ago. We’re $21 trillion in debt. We have no money. None.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
Click to expand...

don't blame the Poor; the right wing only knows how to manufacture debt not solutions.


----------



## P@triot

And now the dolt doubles-down!!! For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.


danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.





danielpalos said:


> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.





danielpalos said:


> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.


And here he is right here in this thread AGAIN claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.


danielpalos said:


> Capitalism cannot be Government.


Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> inequality is not better.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no “inequality”, snowflake. None. Those with Bill Gates IQ and Bill Gates work ethic get Bill Gates equal success.
> 
> The real problem is that you don’t want to put in the equal time and the equal work, but you want the equal results. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have that. The poor is just as “equally protected” under the law as the wealthy. You can’t murder the poor. You can’t rape the poor. You can’t steal from the poor. See? Equal protection.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
Click to expand...

lol.  say that in a more serious venue, not just this political venue where hearsay and soothsay may have equality with truth.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here he is right here in this thread claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, *Government* is Socialism.  the Proof is, it *can't* *be* *Capitalism*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.
Click to expand...

a vacuum of left wing special pleading?  Good socialists merely learn how to Use capitalism for _all_ of its worth in modern times.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> national capitalists find capital solutions; national socialists just whine about social problems.


But....but....you _just_ said that government “can’t be capitalism”. 


danielpalos said:


> Capitalism cannot be Government.





danielpalos said:


> Capitalism cannot be Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> And now the dolt doubles-down!!! For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here he is right here in this thread AGAIN claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism cannot be Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.
Click to expand...

Socialism is Government.  Government cannot be Capitalism unless it is voluntary.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here he is right here in this thread claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, *Government* is Socialism.  the Proof is, it *can't* *be* *Capitalism*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a vacuum of left wing special pleading?
Click to expand...

More like a major vacuum of intellect on your part.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> laws are not capitalism.  neither is Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are *not* “socialism” either. Government is *not* “socialism” is either. Socialism is an economic system.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
Click to expand...

yes; laws are a form of socialism.   it must be so, for any form of social Order over social Chaos.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here he is right here in this thread claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, *Government* is Socialism.  the Proof is, it *can't* *be* *Capitalism*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a vacuum of left wing special pleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More like a major vacuum of intellect on your part.
Click to expand...

Government is a form and part of Socialism.   We have a Constitution, to prove it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Government cannot be Capitalism unless it is voluntary.


Then why did you insist on government “being” capitalists in all of these posts? 


danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.





danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.





danielpalos said:


> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.





danielpalos said:


> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> laws are not capitalism.  neither is Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are *not* “socialism” either. Government is *not* “socialism” is either. Socialism is an economic system.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes; laws are a form of socialism.   it must be so, for any form of social Order over social Chaos.
Click to expand...

Socialism in an economic system, you nitwit. You see the word “social” in socialism and think it applies to any facet of life.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Government is a form and part of Socialism.   We have a Constitution, to prove it.


Socialism is an *economic* *system*, you nitwit.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it doesn't really matter;


The left-wing mantra right there. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter. Nothing but blind allegiance to their *failed* ideology matters.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t ask for a definition, dumb ass. I asked for the *rate*.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't really matter; it is the concept that has to be solved for to simplify Government and its Cost.
Click to expand...

Of course it matters! How can you solve the “natural rate” if you don’t know what that “natural rate” _is_?!?

How can you plan without that rate? How can you prepare and distribute resources without that rate? How do you know if you’re being screwed by an *unnatural* rate if you don’t know what the actual “natural rate” is?

Typical left-wing nitwit. Forge ahead with an idea for without any idea about the scope of the problem, the cause of the problem, the proper solution for the problem, or an end game once the problem is solved.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government cannot be Capitalism unless it is voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you insist on government “being” capitalists in all of these posts?
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

merely Using capitalism for _all_ of its worth; that is all.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> laws are not capitalism.  neither is Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are *not* “socialism” either. Government is *not* “socialism” is either. Socialism is an economic system.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes; laws are a form of socialism.   it must be so, for any form of social Order over social Chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism in an economic system, you nitwit. You see the word “social” in socialism and think it applies to any facet of life.
Click to expand...

socialism includes Government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form and part of Socialism.   We have a Constitution, to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an *economic* *system*, you nitwit.
Click to expand...

socialism, more than that.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't really matter;
> 
> 
> 
> The left-wing mantra right there. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter. Nothing but blind allegiance to their *failed* ideology matters.
Click to expand...

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the concept; not your right wing vacuum of special pleading that doesn't apply to this argument.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t ask for a definition, dumb ass. I asked for the *rate*.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't really matter; it is the concept that has to be solved for to simplify Government and its Cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it matters! How can you solve the “natural rate” if you don’t know what that “natural rate” _is_?!?
> 
> How can you plan without that rate? How can you prepare and distribute resources without that rate? How do you know if you’re being screwed by an *unnatural* rate if you don’t know what the actual “natural rate” is?
> 
> Typical left-wing nitwit. Forge ahead with an idea for without any idea about the scope of the problem, the cause of the problem, the proper solution for the problem, or an end game once the problem is solved.
Click to expand...

any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.  we could be getting more accurate statistics than our current regime.


----------



## hadit

P@triot said:


> For the second time in as many weeks, I have caught danielpalos contradicting himself. That is a trait of the ignorant (which in turn causes them to become desperate as their ignorance is pointed out to them and their position starts to fall apart). Here are his posts insisting over and and over and over that the government needs to be “capitalists” at the border and solve the border issue through “capitalism”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And here he is right here in this thread claiming that government “*cannot*” be capitalists.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, *Government* is Socialism.  the Proof is, it *can't* *be* *Capitalism*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh-oh Daniel. Uh-oh! I just caught you contradicting yourself _again_.
Click to expand...


And now he proceeds to insist that he won and you contradicted yourself.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t ask for a definition, dumb ass. I asked for the *rate*.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't really matter; it is the concept that has to be solved for to simplify Government and its Cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it matters! How can you solve the “natural rate” if you don’t know what that “natural rate” _is_?!?
> 
> How can you plan without that rate? How can you prepare and distribute resources without that rate? How do you know if you’re being screwed by an *unnatural* rate if you don’t know what the actual “natural rate” is?
> 
> Typical left-wing nitwit. Forge ahead with an idea for without any idea about the scope of the problem, the cause of the problem, the proper solution for the problem, or an end game once the problem is solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.  we could be getting more accurate statistics than our current regime.
Click to expand...


How about any adult who is unemployed and needs a JOB should be able to apply for compensation until he is employed again?

Wait, we already have that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.


_Why_?

That is literally as asinine as saying “any male who is lonely and needs sex should be able to rape a woman”. That’s what you just said. Do you know how dumb that is?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't really matter;
> 
> 
> 
> The left-wing mantra right there. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter. Nothing but blind allegiance to their *failed* ideology matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the concept; not your right wing vacuum of special pleading that doesn't apply to this argument.
Click to expand...

What “special pleading”? You’re the idiot pleading. I’m simply pointing out your lack of facts, your misinformation, and your outright lies. I’ve done no “pleading”.

You’re so stupid - you literally don’t even know basic terms like “pleading”. You’re trying to use words you think make you sound smart. But you’re using all of them wrong which makes you sound like a moron.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government cannot be Capitalism unless it is voluntary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you insist on government “being” capitalists in all of these posts?
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> merely Using capitalism for _all_ of its worth; that is all.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question. You said the government should employ capitalism in the border dozens of times. Then you turn around and claim (and I quote) “government cannot be capitalism”. I’ve caught you contradicting yourself.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> socialism includes Government.


Socialism is an economic system. It is *not* a political system.

Why are you so ignorant?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form and part of Socialism.   We have a Constitution, to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an *economic* *system*, you nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> socialism, more than that.
Click to expand...

You don’t get to make up your own definitions and your own version of reality. Get a dictionary, dummy. Socialism is an economic system.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> _Why_?
> 
> That is literally as asinine as saying “any male who is lonely and needs sex should be able to rape a woman”. That’s what you just said. Do you know how dumb that is?
Click to expand...

it promotes the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism includes Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system. It is *not* a political system.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
Click to expand...

Social-ism must include Government.  We have a Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form and part of Socialism.   We have a Constitution, to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an *economic* *system*, you nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> socialism, more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t get to make up your own definitions and your own version of reality. Get a dictionary, dummy. Socialism is an economic system.
Click to expand...

i have an encyclopedic understanding not a dictionary understanding, right wingers.  i already know you have nothing but fallcy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> _Why_?
> 
> That is literally as asinine as saying “any male who is lonely and needs sex should be able to rape a woman”. That’s what you just said. Do you know how dumb that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it promotes the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our economy.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If it did, the U.S.S.R. wouldn't have collapsed. Cuba wouldn't have collapsed. Venezuela wouldn't have collapsed. Oops! You're going to need a new *false* narrative. That would collapsed in under 2.2 seconds.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> _Why_?
> 
> That is literally as asinine as saying “any male who is lonely and needs sex should be able to rape a woman”. That’s what you just said. Do you know how dumb that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it promotes the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our economy.
Click to expand...

And you didn't answer the question. Births have hit record lows around the world and in the U.S. Does that mean that men should be allowed to rape women as it "promotes the general welfare"?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> _Why_?
> 
> That is literally as asinine as saying “any male who is lonely and needs sex should be able to rape a woman”. That’s what you just said. Do you know how dumb that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it promotes the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. If it did, the U.S.S.R. wouldn't have collapsed. Cuba wouldn't have collapsed. Venezuela wouldn't have collapsed. Oops! You're going to need a new *false* narrative. That would collapsed in under 2.2 seconds.
Click to expand...

we have a modern understanding of economics now.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any adult who is unemployed and needs an income should be able to apply for compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> _Why_?
> 
> That is literally as asinine as saying “any male who is lonely and needs sex should be able to rape a woman”. That’s what you just said. Do you know how dumb that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it promotes the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you didn't answer the question. Births have hit record lows around the world and in the U.S. Does that mean that men should be allowed to rape women as it "promotes the general welfare"?
Click to expand...

no; it means we need to upgrade Ellis Island and generate revenue from foreign nationals to pay for it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Social-ism must include Government.  We have a Constitution.


A constitution which explicitly prevents "social-ism".


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> i have an encyclopedic understanding not a dictionary understanding


Both prove that you're a monumental idiot.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism includes Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is an economic system. It is *not* a political system.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social-ism must include Government.  We have a Constitution.
Click to expand...


And unicorns fart Skittles. Those words do not mean what you want them to mean.


----------



## P@triot

Companies and people are fleeing the progressive shit-hole state of California...


> A report last week showed that nearly 2,000 companies left California in 2016, with most of them moving to Texas.


We have the blueprint for prosperity. Texas is using that blueprint. California is using failed left-wing policy. The results are indisputable.

Texas governor hilariously responds to news of California companies flocking to his state


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social-ism must include Government.  We have a Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> A constitution which explicitly prevents "social-ism".
Click to expand...

Prohibition is not a delegated power.  Our Constitution merely limits our use of social-ism, to the express powers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *Prohibition* is not a delegated power.


Neither is socialism...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Prohibition* is not a delegated power.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is socialism...
Click to expand...

our form of social-ism is expressly limited by our Constitution.  

your understanding of the requirements for a social contract is what causes your confusion.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Prohibition* is not a delegated power.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is socialism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our form of social-ism is expressly *limited* by our Constitution.
Click to expand...

So you not only don’t understand what the word socialism means (Mr. Social......ism  ) but you don’t understand even a simple term like “limited”. No wonder you struggle like you do.


----------



## P@triot

The market celebrated the last month of complete and total Republican control.


> The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by 800 points on Friday morning after the monthly Labor Department jobs report showed the economy gained 312,000 jobs in December versus 176,000 expected.


When the Dumbocrats controlled everything in MaObama’s first two years, we saw above 10% unemployment, record debt, decreased savings, and significant loss of liberties.. When Republicans controlled everything for *President* *Trump’s* first two years, we saw record highs in the market, record low unemployment, higher incomes, and more freedom.

Dow rises 800 points after blowout jobs report, comments by Federal Reserve head


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Prohibition* is not a delegated power.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is socialism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our form of social-ism is expressly *limited* by our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you not only don’t understand what the word socialism means (Mr. Social......ism  ) but you don’t understand even a simple term like “limited”. No wonder you struggle like you do.
Click to expand...

you know it less; i am not making excuses.


----------



## P@triot

*President* *Trump* and the Republicans have done more for minorities in 2 years than the Dumbocrat Party has done in 170 years...

Hispanic Unemployment Rate Hits Record Low in December


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> *President* *Trump* and the Republicans have done more for minorities in 2 years than the Dumbocrat Party has done in 170 years...
> 
> Hispanic Unemployment Rate Hits Record Low in December


trends were up, anyway.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> *President* *Trump* and the Republicans have done more for minorities in 2 years than the Dumbocrat Party has done in 170 years...
> 
> Hispanic Unemployment Rate Hits Record Low in December


LOL

Thanks, Obama!

You’re such a buttplug, Buttplug. The reality you choose to ignore is that the Hispanic unemployment rate peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession. The previous low was 4.8%. To reach a record low, Hispanic unemployment would have to drop *8.2* points. It dropped only 1 point under Trump to reach that record low since it had already dropped a staggering *7.2* points under Obama; and continued that trend under Trump.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> The reality you choose to ignore is that the Hispanic unemployment rate peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession.


Ohhhh...you mean in 2009 under MaObama and the Dumbocrats?
  


Faun said:


> To reach a record low, Hispanic unemployment would have to drop *8.2* points. It dropped only 1 point under Trump to reach that record low since it had already dropped a staggering *7.2* points under Obama; and continued that trend under Trump.


Oh snowflake...it didn’t drop at all under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. In fact, it spiked. It didn’t drop until after the 2010 midterms, when Republicans took control off _everything_ coast-to-coast.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President* *Trump* and the Republicans have done more for minorities in 2 years than the Dumbocrat Party has done in 170 years...
> 
> Hispanic Unemployment Rate Hits Record Low in December
> 
> 
> 
> The reality you choose to ignore is that the Hispanic unemployment rate peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession. The previous low was 4.8%. To reach a record low, Hispanic unemployment would have to drop *8.2* points. It dropped only 1 point under Trump to reach that record low since it had already dropped a staggering *7.2* points under Obama; and continued that trend under Trump.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality you choose to ignore is that the Hispanic unemployment rate peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession.
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...you mean in 2009 under MaObama and the Dumbocrats?
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> To reach a record low, Hispanic unemployment would have to drop *8.2* points. It dropped only 1 point under Trump to reach that record low since it had already dropped a staggering *7.2* points under Obama; and continued that trend under Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh snowflake...it didn’t drop at all under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. In fact, it spiked. It didn’t drop until after the 2010 midterms, when Republicans took control off _everything_ coast-to-coast.
Click to expand...

*”Ohhhh...you mean in 2009 under MaObama and the Dumbocrats?”*

Buttplug, Bush’s Great Recession started in 2007, not 2009. 

*”Oh snowflake...it didn’t drop at all under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. In fact, it spiked.”*

Liar.  I even gave you the link which shows it went from 13% to 5.8% under Obama.

*”It didn’t drop until after the 2010 midterms, when Republicans took control off everything coast-to-coast.”*

LOLOL 

Numbnuts, according to your moronic ramblings, Democrats get credit for the hundreds of thousands of jobs added the last couple of months.

See how stupid you sound?


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President* *Trump* and the Republicans have done more for minorities in 2 years than the Dumbocrat Party has done in 170 years...
> 
> Hispanic Unemployment Rate Hits Record Low in December
> 
> 
> 
> The reality you choose to ignore is that the Hispanic unemployment rate peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession. The previous low was 4.8%. To reach a record low, Hispanic unemployment would have to drop *8.2* points. It dropped only 1 point under Trump to reach that record low since it had already dropped a staggering *7.2* points under Obama; and continued that trend under Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There’s no spin, Buttplug. Reality is not spin just because it annoys you. And the reality  is to hit an all time low of 4.8%, Hispanic unemployment had to drop from 13%, where it was in August, 2009 following Bush’s Great Recession, to 4.8%, which it hit in November, 2017.

That’s a drop of 8.2 points. It was 5.8% when Obama left office. It was 5.0% just 2 months later, before Trump’s policies had much effect and while we were still operating under Obama’s budget.

The reality you sadly hide under your bed from is that it dropped:

Obama: 7.2 points
Trump: 1.0 point

And that’s all it takes for you to lie just so you can fluff trump.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> *“Oh snowflake...it didn’t drop at all under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. In fact, it spiked.”*
> 
> Liar.  I even gave you the link which shows it went from 13% to 5.8% under Obama.


Children, Faun Over Men is the perfect example of why you should stay in school. As I highlighted above (in red), I said “MaObama and the Dumbocrats”. When they were in control of everything for 2 long years, the economy collapsed. Unemployment hit above 10% despite MaObama’s “promise” that it would never hit 8% if we just passed his stimulus package.

So when did it drop “under” MaObama? Oh yeah, after the 2010 midterm “shellacking” (MaObama’s own word) when Republicans took control of everything coast-to-coast and implemented proven conservative policy. The astounding turnaround in Wisconsin had nothing to do with MaObama and everything to do with Scott Walker.

See kids, Faun Over Men is what is known as a “parasite”. He wants to mooch off of society so he doesn’t have to work and provide for himself. To achieve that, he needs Dumbocrats in office. And to achieve _that_, he must deny reality, lie, and push loads of propaganda.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not spin just because it annoys you. And the reality  is to hit an all time low of 4.8%, Hispanic unemployment had to drop from *13%*, where it was *in August, 2009 *following Bush’s Great Recession
Click to expand...

MaObama was President in 2009.   

And Congress had been controlled by the Dumbocrats for 2 years at that point.

Like I said, Faun Over Men...


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“Oh snowflake...it didn’t drop at all under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. In fact, it spiked.”*
> 
> Liar.  I even gave you the link which shows it went from 13% to 5.8% under Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> Children, Faun Over Men is the perfect example of why you should stay in school. As I highlighted above (in red), I said “MaObama and the Dumbocrats”. When they were in control of everything for 2 long years, the economy collapsed. Unemployment hit above 10% despite MaObama’s “promise” that it would never hit 8% if we just passed his stimulus package.
> 
> So when did it drop “under” MaObama? Oh yeah, after the 2010 midterm “shellacking” (MaObama’s own word) when Republicans took control of everything coast-to-coast and implemented proven conservative policy. The astounding turnaround in Wisconsin had nothing to do with MaObama and everything to do with Scott Walker.
> 
> See kids, Faun Over Men is what is known as a “parasite”. He wants to mooch off of society so he doesn’t have to work and provide for himself. To achieve that, he needs Dumbocrats in office. And to achieve _that_, he must deny reality, lie, and push loads of propaganda.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Poor Buttplug, the unemployment rate began falling before Republicans took control of the House. Not to mention, with Democrats still in control of the Executive branch and the Senate, Republicans in the House has no power to pass any legislation.

Still, under Obama, Hispanic unemployment dropped 7.2 points from 13.0%  to 5.8%. It dropped 1 point from 5.8% to 4.8% under trump to reach the all time low.

Buttplug fluffs trump.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not spin just because it annoys you. And the reality  is to hit an all time low of 4.8%, Hispanic unemployment had to drop from *13%*, where it was *in August, 2009 *following Bush’s Great Recession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MaObama was President in 2009.
> 
> And Congress had been controlled by the Dumbocrats for 2 years at that point.
> 
> Like I said, Faun Over Men...
Click to expand...

So? Hispanic unemployment peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession. That was caused by toxic real estate loans being given years earlier, which you moronically believe weren’t given until Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007.

That proves you’re retarded.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> So? Hispanic unemployment peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession. That was caused by toxic real estate loans being given years earlier, which you moronically believe weren’t given until Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007.


No, I’m on record all over USMB stating that the “toxic loans” were the result of Bill Clinton’s 1997 Community Re-investment Act which essentially *forced* banks to make the bad loans. Because, ya know, socialism. Everyone should own a home - whether they can afford it or not. This is what happens when government interferes. And your solution to problems caused by government interference is more government interference? Bwahahaha! Typical left-wing parasite. More government so you can do more mooching off of society.

In any case, as usual, your entire post is 100% inaccurate.


----------



## P@triot

Faun said:


> the unemployment rate began falling before Republicans took control of the House.


Your very disturbing obsession with homosexual toys and terms aside, the unemployment rate skyrocketed under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. The day MaObama was sworn in, the unemployment rate was 7% and change. After they “promised” that unemployment would never reach 8% of we passed their idiotic (and unconstitutional) “stimulus package”. Well, we did. And unemployment skyrocketed above 10%. Those are the *facts* and they cannot be disputed.


Faun said:


> Not to mention, with Democrats still in control of the Executive branch and the Senate, Republicans in the House has no power to pass any legislation.


Because economic prosperity only occurs at the federal level? 

1. Republicans had power to prevent legislation. That gave investors and business owners confidence to invest, hire, expand, etc.

2. Jobs were created by policy at the state and local levels (where Republicans kicked the living shit out of the Dumbocrats). Scott Walker literally saved Wisconsin. John Kasich turned around Ohio. Rick Snyder drastically turned around Michigan.

It’s ok, Faun Over Men. We know you’ve been so busy getting off on your gay porn sites (and the gay emojis here on USMB) that you have no time to learn the facts. So I’ll keep feeding them to you like your boyfriends feed you their loads.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Hispanic unemployment peaked at 13% due to Bush’s Great Recession. That was caused by toxic real estate loans being given years earlier, which you moronically believe weren’t given until Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I’m on record all over USMB stating that the “toxic loans” were the result of Bill Clinton’s 1997 Community Re-investment Act which essentially *forced* banks to make the bad loans. Because, ya know, socialism. Everyone should own a home - whether they can afford it or not. This is what happens when government interferes. And your solution to problems caused by government interference is more government interference? Bwahahaha! Typical left-wing parasite. More government so you can do more mooching off of society.
> 
> In any case, as usual, your entire post is 100% inaccurate.
Click to expand...

_*”No, I’m on record all over USMB stating that the “toxic loans” were the result of Bill Clinton’s 1997 Community Re-investment Act which essentially forced banks to make the bad loans.”*_

LOLOLOLOL

You’re on record???

You’re a fucking imbecile. Meaning anything you posted “on record” is fucking rightarded. Need I remind you, you also said Obama was president in 2007. It matters not what you said, especially since the CRA had little to do with the economic collapse. 

And of course, none of your rhetoric alters the reality that Hispanic unemployment fell from 13% to 5.8% under Obama, and continued falling to 5% just 2 months after Obama left office. It fell an additional *0.2 points* later in the year to reach its all time low of 4.8%.


----------



## Faun

P@triot said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unemployment rate began falling before Republicans took control of the House.
> 
> 
> 
> Your very disturbing obsession with homosexual toys and terms aside, the unemployment rate skyrocketed under MaObama and the Dumbocrats. The day MaObama was sworn in, the unemployment rate was 7% and change. After they “promised” that unemployment would never reach 8% of we passed their idiotic (and unconstitutional) “stimulus package”. Well, we did. And unemployment skyrocketed above 10%. Those are the *facts* and they cannot be disputed.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, with Democrats still in control of the Executive branch and the Senate, Republicans in the House has no power to pass any legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because economic prosperity only occurs at the federal level?
> 
> 1. Republicans had power to prevent legislation. That gave investors and business owners confidence to invest, hire, expand, etc.
> 
> 2. Jobs were created by policy at the state and local levels (where Republicans kicked the living shit out of the Dumbocrats). Scott Walker literally saved Wisconsin. John Kasich turned around Ohio. Rick Snyder drastically turned around Michigan.
> 
> It’s ok, Faun Over Men. We know you’ve been so busy getting off on your gay porn sites (and the gay emojis here on USMB) that you have no time to learn the facts. So I’ll keep feeding them to you like your boyfriends feed you their loads.
Click to expand...

And yet, the only one talking about gay toys, gay porn, and gay sites — is you. And as mentioned, the unemployment rate skyrocketed as a result of Bush’s Great Recession. Your denial of reality doesn’t help you.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand;
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?
Click to expand...

Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?


> Employee hours have been *reduced in 76.5%* of full-service restaurants in New York City and 36% said they had to eliminate jobs in response to the city's minimum wage increase, according to a survey done by The NYC Hospitality Alliance. The survey also found most limited-service restaurants plan to reduce hours or eliminate jobs in the coming year.


Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.

New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand;
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?
> 
> 
> 
> Employee hours have been *reduced in 76.5%* of full-service restaurants in New York City and 36% said they had to eliminate jobs in response to the city's minimum wage increase, according to a survey done by The NYC Hospitality Alliance. The survey also found most limited-service restaurants plan to reduce hours or eliminate jobs in the coming year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages
Click to expand...

Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Labor prefers equal protection of the law


It's not a legal issue, snowflake. It's an economic issue. You continue to confuse all of these basic systems.


danielpalos said:


> and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.


But it's not going to happen snowflake. When you pay people not to work, you get Venezuela.


----------



## danielpalos

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


And after being obliterated with facts, DP decides to completely change the subject.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand;
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?
> 
> 
> 
> Employee hours have been *reduced in 76.5%* of full-service restaurants in New York City and 36% said they had to eliminate jobs in response to the city's minimum wage increase, according to a survey done by The NYC Hospitality Alliance. The survey also found most limited-service restaurants plan to reduce hours or eliminate jobs in the coming year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the long run, higher paid labor must create more demand;
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to *lose* *hours*, and it’s also *costing* *jobs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?
> 
> 
> 
> Employee hours have been *reduced in 76.5%* of full-service restaurants in New York City and 36% said they had to eliminate jobs in response to the city's minimum wage increase, according to a survey done by The NYC Hospitality Alliance. The survey also found most limited-service restaurants plan to reduce hours or eliminate jobs in the coming year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.
Click to expand...

a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?


It's not about a "First World". It's about what the U.S. Constitution authorizes and what it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme *law* of the land. The definition of a "First World" isn't a law at all in the U.S.

Stop advocating for lawless thugs just because you're greedy and lazy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the long run, I just *proved* that you’re making shit up. Both left-wing University of Washington and left-wing Seattle Times have confirmed that everything you say is bullshit. And when you are *proven* wrong, you jus repeat the nonsense.
> Your claims are all 100% false. The $15 per hour minimum wage creates higher unemployment and lower incomes for the minimum wage worker as their hours are cut to offset the increase minimum. End of story.
> 
> UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
> 
> 
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?
> 
> 
> 
> Employee hours have been *reduced in 76.5%* of full-service restaurants in New York City and 36% said they had to eliminate jobs in response to the city's minimum wage increase, according to a survey done by The NYC Hospitality Alliance. The survey also found most limited-service restaurants plan to reduce hours or eliminate jobs in the coming year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
Click to expand...


The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about a "First World". It's about what the U.S. Constitution authorizes and what it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme *law* of the land. The definition of a "First World" isn't a law at all in the U.S.
> 
> Stop advocating for lawless thugs just because you're greedy and lazy.
Click to expand...

Promoting the general welfare is not the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?
> 
> 
> 
> Employee hours have been *reduced in 76.5%* of full-service restaurants in New York City and 36% said they had to eliminate jobs in response to the city's minimum wage increase, according to a survey done by The NYC Hospitality Alliance. The survey also found most limited-service restaurants plan to reduce hours or eliminate jobs in the coming year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.
Click to expand...

the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope! Not a "flawed study", snowflake. If both the Seattle Times and the University of Washington weren't enough for you, how about we shift all the way across the country and take a look at New York?
> Nothing ends in *failure* like idiotic left-wing policy.
> 
> New York Restaurants Struggle to Adapt to Higher Wages
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone can "get" that.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead and automate.  Labor prefers equal protection of the law and compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can "get" that.
Click to expand...

not dumbed down enough for the right wing; i got it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've learned precisely nothing from your repeated defeats on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can "get" that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumbed down enough for the right wing; i got it.
Click to expand...


You have to come a long way up to get to dumbed down.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a First World costs.  what part of that does the right wing not get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can "get" that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumbed down enough for the right wing; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to come a long way up to get to dumbed down.
Click to expand...

only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you keep saying the same stupid, discredited things over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can "get" that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumbed down enough for the right wing; i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to come a long way up to get to dumbed down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


And now you're repeating yourself. Game over, you lost.


----------



## danielpalos

still not dumb enough for the right wing.


----------



## sparky

this thread is like watching the hands rearrange deck chairs on the titanic.....~S~


----------



## danielpalos

sparky said:


> this thread is like watching the hands rearrange deck chairs on the titanic.....~S~


high numbers and plenty of practice would have made a difference.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...


> He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.


Conservative policy produces prosperity _every_ time. Progressive policy produces poverty _every_ time. Period.

Georgia Lawmaker Touts Nation’s ‘Greatest Economic Turnaround’


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> nobody takes the right wing seriously.
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


/——/ And democRATs had nothing to do with running up the debt since 1964?


----------



## nat4900

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative policy produces prosperity _every_ time. Progressive policy produces poverty _every_ time. Period.
> 
> Georgia Lawmaker Touts Nation’s ‘Greatest Economic Turnaround’
Click to expand...


*The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats - Forbes*
*Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won't They Say So?*


----------



## Cellblock2429

nat4900 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative policy produces prosperity _every_ time. Progressive policy produces poverty _every_ time. Period.
> 
> Georgia Lawmaker Touts Nation’s ‘Greatest Economic Turnaround’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats - Forbes*
> *Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won't They Say So?*
Click to expand...

/——-/ That maybe was true up until Obozo. Jimma Carter has a miserable economy and Reagan fixed it.


----------



## P@triot

nat4900 said:


> The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats - Forbes
> Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won't They Say So?


History proves otherwise, you dolt. FDR oversaw the Great Depression. Jimmy Carter oversaw the Great Recession. MaObama oversaw the Great Collapse.

Every time, Republicans bailed the nation out with proven economic policy.


----------



## Cellblock2429

P@triot said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats - Forbes
> Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won't They Say So?
> 
> 
> 
> History proves otherwise, you dolt. FDR oversaw the Great Depression. Jimmy Carter oversaw the Great Recession. MaObama oversaw the Great Collapse.
> 
> Every time, Republicans bailed the nation out with proven economic policy.
Click to expand...

/----/ Hope this helps...
1.) FDR expanded the Great Depression by doubling down on Hoover's meddling in the economy.  "FDR didn’t need to know much about economics to realize that big government was no way to go. He would have done better to remove obstacles – starting with Hoover’s obstacles – that interfered with the ability of the private sector to recover and prosper. "  FDR's Biggest Mistake During the Depression - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
2.) Jimma Carter Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration.  Jimmy Carter on Budget & Economy
3.) MaObama oversaw the Great Collapse. -- Sorry I don't speak gibberish.


----------



## otto105

Cellblock2429 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative policy produces prosperity _every_ time. Progressive policy produces poverty _every_ time. Period.
> 
> Georgia Lawmaker Touts Nation’s ‘Greatest Economic Turnaround’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats - Forbes*
> *Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won't They Say So?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ That maybe was true up until Obozo. Jimma Carter has a miserable economy and Reagan fixed it.
Click to expand...



Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter's economy with debt economy.


----------



## Cellblock2429

otto105 said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative policy produces prosperity _every_ time. Progressive policy produces poverty _every_ time. Period.
> 
> Georgia Lawmaker Touts Nation’s ‘Greatest Economic Turnaround’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Economy Does Better Under The Democrats - Forbes*
> *Dems Are Better for the Economy. Why Won't They Say So?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ That maybe was true up until Obozo. Jimma Carter has a miserable economy and Reagan fixed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter's economy with debt economy.
Click to expand...

/---/ Funny how democRATs lined up to vote for the spending to prove they were tough on defense.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter's economy with debt economy.


Well it takes a lot to support the illegal/unconstitutional socialism of the Dumbocrats (Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), rebuild an entire economy  and rebuild a military decimated by ignorant left-wing idealism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter's economy with debt economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it takes a lot to support the illegal/unconstitutional socialism of the Dumbocrats (Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), rebuild an entire economy  and rebuild a military decimated by ignorant left-wing idealism.
Click to expand...

We have a welfare-State clause not a warfare-State clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a *welfare-State *clause


Uh...no we don’t. Absolutely nowhere in any document (Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) does their term “welfare-state” appear. You continue to make shit up and illustrate your ignorance.



danielpalos said:


> not a warfare-State clause.


Yes we do. Defense is the #1 priority of the federal government. It is better to keep your mouth shut and have been assume you are an idiot than to speak and confirm for them that you are in fact an idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a *welfare-State *clause
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...no we don’t. Absolutely nowhere in any document (Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.) does their term “welfare-state” appear. You continue to make shit up and illustrate your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not a warfare-State clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we do. Defense is the #1 priority of the federal government. It is better to keep your mouth shut and have been assume you are an idiot than to speak and confirm for them that you are in fact an idiot.
Click to expand...

We have a welfare clause General not welfare clause common.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter's economy with debt economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it takes a lot to support the illegal/unconstitutional socialism of the Dumbocrats (Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), rebuild an entire economy  and rebuild a military decimated by ignorant left-wing idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a welfare-State clause not a warfare-State clause.
Click to expand...

/----/ Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong-wrong-wrong?
*Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war and to maintain an army and navy. Article II, Section 2 names the president as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and state militias, or national guards. Article I, Section 8 also authorizes Congress to grant the president the authority to place state militias under federal control to "suppress insurrections or repel invasions." By giving Congress the power to declare war and the president the power to wage war, the Founding Fathers ensured that one branch could not gain complete control over the nation's armed forces.*


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter's economy with debt economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it takes a lot to support the illegal/unconstitutional socialism of the Dumbocrats (Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), rebuild an entire economy  and rebuild a military decimated by ignorant left-wing idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a welfare-State clause not a warfare-State clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong-wrong-wrong?
> *Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war and to maintain an army and navy. Article II, Section 2 names the president as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and state militias, or national guards. Article I, Section 8 also authorizes Congress to grant the president the authority to place state militias under federal control to "suppress insurrections or repel invasions." By giving Congress the power to declare war and the president the power to wage war, the Founding Fathers ensured that one branch could not gain complete control over the nation's armed forces.*
Click to expand...

lol.  I would "upgrade" my point of view if I were wrong.  I only get tired of the right always being wrong instead simply being right.



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
> 
> to pay the Debts and provide for the _common_ _Defence_ and _general_ _Welfare_ of the United States;​
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a welfare clause General not welfare clause common.


We have no such thing. Piss off, troll.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a welfare clause General not welfare clause common.
> 
> 
> 
> We have no such thing. Piss off, troll.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do, Troll.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> lol.  I would "upgrade" my point of view if I were wrong.  I only get tired of the right always being wrong instead simply being right.
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
> 
> to pay the Debts and provide for the _common_ _Defence_ and _general_ _Welfare_ of the United States;​
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

Snowflake, I’ve already proven you dead-wrong on this dozens of times. The “General Welfare” applies to the 18 enumerated powers _only_. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:


> “Congress had *not* unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)





> “[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)


You’re ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson trumps you _every_ time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a welfare clause General not welfare clause common.
> 
> 
> 
> We have no such thing. Piss off, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do, Troll.
Click to expand...

I’ve already proven you wrong and made you my personal bitch on this topic. You were even forced to relent. Piss off, troll.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  I would "upgrade" my point of view if I were wrong.  I only get tired of the right always being wrong instead simply being right.
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
> 
> to pay the Debts and provide for the _common_ _Defence_ and _general_ _Welfare_ of the United States;​
> but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, I’ve already proven you dead-wrong on this dozens of times. The “General Welfare” applies to the 18 enumerated powers _only_. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.
> 
> Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:
> 
> 
> 
> “Congress had *not* unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson trumps you _every_ time.
Click to expand...

You are the one appealing to ignorance of our Constitution.  Our welfare clause is expressly declared General not Common, unlike our defense clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General not Common, unlike our defense clause.


Yep...”general” within the context of the 18 enumerated powers. Everyone knows that except you ignorant left-wingers who are incapable of reading the U.S. Constitution due to illiteracy.

I’ve got original writings from Thomas Jefferson proving I’m right. You’ve got nothing but the shit you regurgitate from other wing-nuts who made it up.

Piss off troll.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General not Common, unlike our defense clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...”general” within the context of the 18 enumerated powers. Everyone knows that except you ignorant left-wingers who are incapable of reading the U.S. Constitution due to illiteracy.
> 
> I’ve got original writings from Thomas Jefferson proving I’m right. You’ve got nothing but the shit you regurgitate from other wing-nuts who made it up.
> 
> Piss off troll.
Click to expand...


*Providing* for the *welfare* of the *general* public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. *Constitution* cites promotion of the *general welfare* as a primary reason for the creation of the *Constitution*. ... Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the *general welfare*.


----------



## basquebromance

America once had ONCE HAD the best educated workforce in the history of the world. if we elect a socialist, we are going to make that happen again!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General not Common, unlike our defense clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...”general” within the context of the 18 enumerated powers. Everyone knows that except you ignorant left-wingers who are incapable of reading the U.S. Constitution due to illiteracy.
> 
> I’ve got original writings from Thomas Jefferson proving I’m right. You’ve got nothing but the shit you regurgitate from other wing-nuts who made it up.
> 
> Piss off troll.
Click to expand...

our defense clause is Common, not General and even "less flexible", in that Case; 

Troll.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> ... Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the *general welfare*.


The "general welfare" clause means to spend money for the "general welfare" within the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. Only an idiot doesn't understand that basic premise.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General not Common, unlike our defense clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...”general” within the context of the 18 enumerated powers. Everyone knows that except you ignorant left-wingers who are incapable of reading the U.S. Constitution due to illiteracy.
> 
> I’ve got original writings from Thomas Jefferson proving I’m right. You’ve got nothing but the shit you regurgitate from other wing-nuts who made it up.
> 
> Piss off troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our defense clause is Common, not General and even "less flexible", in that Case;
Click to expand...

It's amazing that you literally don't even understand the basic definition of basic words such as "common" and "general". Freaking _hilarious_.

Piss off, troll.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General not Common, unlike our defense clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...”general” within the context of the 18 enumerated powers. Everyone knows that except you ignorant left-wingers who are incapable of reading the U.S. Constitution due to illiteracy.
> 
> I’ve got original writings from Thomas Jefferson proving I’m right. You’ve got nothing but the shit you regurgitate from other wing-nuts who made it up.
> 
> Piss off troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our defense clause is Common, not General and even "less flexible", in that Case;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing that you literally don't even understand the basic definition of basic words such as "common" and "general". Freaking _hilarious_.
> 
> Piss off, troll.
Click to expand...

our welfare clause is General and is virtually unlimited.  our defense clause is Common and quite limited.

Troll.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the *general welfare*.
> 
> 
> 
> The "general welfare" clause means to spend money for the "general welfare" within the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. Only an idiot doesn't understand that basic premise.
Click to expand...


Are you stating what your belief is of some idiotic indoctrinated belief in those powers?

Or actual General Welfare?


----------



## otto105

Also listed, however, are the powers of Congress to tax in order to “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,” to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and to declare war and raise and regulate military forces. These powers are so broad and basic that they have proved very difficult to confine.


But you, little libertarian piece of shit have tried.


And failed.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity...
> 
> 
> 
> He said that all Americans, not just some, are seeing the benefits of the Trump economy, especially since the president signed Republican lawmakers’ tax cuts into law on Dec. 22, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative policy produces prosperity _every_ time. Progressive policy produces poverty _every_ time. Period.
> 
> Georgia Lawmaker Touts Nation’s ‘Greatest Economic Turnaround’
Click to expand...



Conservative policy brought us both the Great Depression and the GreT Recession.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Conservative policy brought us both the Great Depression


Your ignorance is vast and astounding. Even left-wing UCLA admitted that FDR created the Great Depression. More than that, even FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury (and the architect of the “New Deal”) admitted that FDR’s policies created the Great Depression.

But hey, don’t let something like pesky facts stop you from your commitment to the failed left-wing ideology Otto!


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative policy brought us both the Great Depression
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is vast and astounding. Even left-wing UCLA admitted that FDR created the Great Depression. More than that, even FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury (and the architect of the “New Deal”) admitted that FDR’s policies created the Great Depression.
> 
> But hey, don’t let something like pesky facts stop you from your commitment to the failed left-wing ideology Otto!
Click to expand...



Yes, I won't let your supposed "facts" get in the way.


First, that aricle doesn't say that FDR "created" the Great Depression, Second, do you even know when the republican inspired Great Depression started.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...


> Because the last time financial experts checked, the most socially conservative states also happened to be the most prosperous. For years, places like North Carolina (No. 1), Texas (No. 3), and Georgia (No. 6) have topped Forbes’s Best States for Business list—despite high-profile campaigns for privacy, religious liberty, and life.


Conservative policy creates prosperity every time. Progressive policy creates poverty every time.

How Liberal Companies Are Bringing Blue State Mindsets to Red States


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> First, that aricle doesn't say that FDR "created" the Great Depression


That’s *exactly* what it says. His policies prolonged the misery. Without the idiocy of FDR’s failed left-wing ideology, there is no “Great Depression”. There probably isn’t even a depression. It’s likely just a recession.


otto105 said:


> Second, do you even know when the republican inspired Great Depression started.


Yes. After FDR created it. I know you want to say “1929” but that was no different from “Black Monday” under Ronald Reagan. So why did that last 24 hours while 1929 turned into a decade unprecedented misery? The answer of course is failed left-wing policies.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, that aricle doesn't say that FDR "created" the Great Depression
> 
> 
> 
> That’s *exactly* what it says. His policies prolonged the misery. Without the idiocy of FDR’s failed left-wing ideology, there is no “Great Depression”. There probably isn’t even a depression. It’s likely just a recession.
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, do you even know when the republican inspired Great Depression started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. After FDR created it. I know you want to say “1929” but that was no different from “Black Monday” under Ronald Reagan. So why did that last 24 hours while 1929 turned into a decade unprecedented misery? The answer of course is failed left-wing policies.
Click to expand...



And those "failed left-wing polices" were...

Also, do you know anything about the Great Depression?


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> And those "failed left-wing polices" were...


Geez...you don’t even know what policies FDR implemented? Grab a history book. Google is your friend.


otto105 said:


> Also, do you know anything about the Great Depression?


I know at least one thing about it. Unlike you, I know who caused it.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those "failed left-wing polices" were...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez...you don’t even know what policies FDR implemented? Grab a history book. Google is your friend.
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, do you know anything about the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know at least one thing about it. Unlike you, I know who caused it.
Click to expand...



So far your ZERO for TWO.

Again, what "left-wing polices" caused the Great Depression?


And just "who" caused the Great Depression? Maybe the president who kept us on the Gold Standard who wanted people to "pull themselves up by the boot strapes"?




Keep digging wingnut this is to funny.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> And just "who" caused the Great Depression?


Are you serious? 

We just covered that less than 20 minutes ago. Holy shit. Did you forget to take your schizophrenia medication this morning?


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just "who" caused the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> We just covered that less than 20 minutes ago. Holy shit. Did you forget to take your schizophrenia medication this morning?
Click to expand...



So it now stands at ZERO for THREE.

No laws from "left-wing policies" cited.

No name of the "who" who caused the republic Great Depression.

No understanding even of the republic Great Depression.


Nothing. Zelch. Nada.


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
Click to expand...


"70% reduction in able-bodied adults".  Since the vast majority of people receiving food stamps are children and retired people, the actual numbers of able bodied adults would be quite small.  70% of nothing is still nothing.


----------



## Thinker101

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From _your_ article...."It led to a 70% reduction in able-bodied adults who receive food stamps". That's *exactly* what the video says if you had taken the time to watch it. But....being a hardline, brainwashed ideologue, you refuse to research anything or question your ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "70% reduction in able-bodied adults".  Since the vast majority of people receiving food stamps are children and retired people, the actual numbers of able bodied adults would be quite small.  70% of nothing is still nothing.
Click to expand...


What kinda BS are you trying to spread, children are not receiving food stamps.  Parents of the kids are receiving food stamps.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Since the vast majority of people receiving food stamps are children and retired people,


Since the vast majority of your posts are pure bullshit from an ignorant foreigner, please provide some actual data to back up your claim.

Notice how I provide cold, hard facts/statistics while dumb foreigner here just makes up shit as she goes?


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> So it now stands at ZERO for THREE.


Exactly! You’re now 0 for 3. If you recognize that, why don’t you do _something_ about it?


----------



## P@triot

Conservative policy always creates prosperity...


> Wages not only grew 3.4% in the past 12 months, the fastest rate since before 2009, but the increases are benefiting low-income earners the most, according to the Council of Economic Advisers.


While the Dumbocrats “Fight for Fifteen” is _killing_ low-income workers, *President* *Trump* and the Republicans are implementing policies that are lifting low-income workers out of the lower class (exactly what the Dumbocrats fear the most).

White House Report Hails Tax Cuts Spurring Economic Growth


----------



## P@triot

Conservative policy _always_ creates prosperity...


> In truth, capitalism has done more to lift the world out of poverty than any other economic system ever devised. Over the last 25 years, the spread of policies that promote economic freedom has cut the global poverty rate by two-thirds.


Capitalism creates universal prosperity. Leftism creates universal poverty.

America’s Past Shows Why Socialism Won’t Work


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...


> The nation continues to boast an almost record low unemployment rate and rising wages for workers.


Proven conservative policy always ends in prosperity. Failed progressive policy always ends in poverty.

The US Economy Beat the Experts by Nearly 20,000 Jobs in March


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. It’s just a matter of defeating the propaganda of the left...

Coalition Against Socialized Medicine challenges ‘Medicare for all’ push


----------



## danielpalos

equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.


/——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
Click to expand...

Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
Click to expand...


Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. It’s just a matter of defeating the propaganda of the left...
> 
> Coalition Against Socialized Medicine challenges ‘Medicare for all’ push


Like trickle down?
I gues you don't believe ronnies own economist?
Glad to see you show our Ben who wanted to ban German immigrants
"They are swarthy, can't speak our language and are taking our jobs"
I presume you are sucking off socialist SS Medicare VA?
Don't tell me the above comes from info wars.
I thought most economists think it would save money?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. It’s just a matter of defeating the propaganda of the left...
> 
> Coalition Against Socialized Medicine challenges ‘Medicare for all’ push


Washington times? I was guessing infowars
Nothing like a fair source.


----------



## ph3iron

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
Click to expand...


See the graph?
Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
Trump u?


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
Click to expand...

/——-/ The only depression in the last 100 years began in the 1930s.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
Click to expand...

/——-/ You’re wrong again
Obama Gutted Work Requirements for Welfare. Why Trump Is Right to Restore Them.


----------



## hadit

ph3iron said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
Click to expand...


Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.



Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
Click to expand...

because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
Click to expand...

No it means a living wage.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ You’re wrong again
> Obama Gutted Work Requirements for Welfare. Why Trump Is Right to Restore Them.
Click to expand...

when Obama did that it was because they had no work left for all the people that were on welfare. I agree Trump did the right thing to bring it back.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ You’re wrong again
> Obama Gutted Work Requirements for Welfare. Why Trump Is Right to Restore Them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when Obama did that it was because they had no work left for all the people that were on welfare. I agree Trump did the right thing to bring it back.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Provide a link to back up your idiotic.  misleading, and factually incorrect claim.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
Click to expand...

/——/ That money went to prop up Union pension funded and you know it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Living wage as defined by the left: An ever moving target so we have a talking point.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
Click to expand...


Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
Click to expand...


Not to him. To him, it means he wants to get paid $14/hr even if he decides he just doesn't want to work a job. Believe me, I've been over it with him plenty of times, and that's exactly what he's getting at.


----------



## hadit

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Living wage as defined by the left: An ever moving target so we have a talking point.
Click to expand...


True. They don't want to pin down terms like living wage or fair share.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
Click to expand...

/——/ Get a clue, you dingbat 
What Causes an Economic Depression, and Why One Won't Happen Again
An economic depression is a severe downturn that lasts several years. Fortunately, the U.S. economy has only experienced one economic depression. That's the Great Depression of 1929. It lasted for 10 years. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the decline in the gross domestic product growth rates was of a magnitude not seen since:


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ You’re wrong again
> Obama Gutted Work Requirements for Welfare. Why Trump Is Right to Restore Them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when Obama did that it was because they had no work left for all the people that were on welfare. I agree Trump did the right thing to bring it back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Provide a link to back up your idiotic.  misleading, and factually incorrect claim.
Click to expand...

9 million people became unemployed 9% cut in GDP and you idiots think it was a market correction unbelievable. Of course they ran out of work for people to do. By the time Obama did what he did, work for cash was down to 29%... He just gave localities an option.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2tqsocZw9Gy2Ac0j0dhY2k&cshid=1560034338982


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Get a clue, you dingbat
> What Causes an Economic Depression, and Why One Won't Happen Again
> An economic depression is a severe downturn that lasts several years. Fortunately, the U.S. economy has only experienced one economic depression. That's the Great Depression of 1929. It lasted for 10 years. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the decline in the gross domestic product growth rates was of a magnitude not seen since:
Click to expand...

there were panics and depressions before the Great Depression, and we would have had another one in 2008 without 2 trillion dollars worth of tarp and stimuli.We won't have another one until the next corrupt GOP deregulation bubble and bust. Which regular people will pay for again. Thank God the Democrats were there quickly this time.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Living wage as defined by the left: An ever moving target so we have a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. They don't want to pin down terms like living wage or fair share.
Click to expand...

$12 equals 1968 minimum wage. Fairshare is definitely more than paying the same percentage as everyone else in all taxes like they do now, super dupers. The percentage is our justl when Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 50% to 28% finally, the kiss of death. 50% would be fine
That's when Reagan had his success. he was just lucky and you people have made it into a religion. No sacrifice is too great so the rich can get away with murder... So whatever happened 2 cheap public universities?And good infrastructure?. Stupidest voters in the modern world..... Functionally of course.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to him. To him, it means he wants to get paid $14/hr even if he decides he just doesn't want to work a job. Believe me, I've been over it with him plenty of times, and that's exactly what he's getting at.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he wants other people to get $14 an hour. like talking politics. He is mysterious LOL


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to him. To him, it means he wants to get paid $14/hr even if he decides he just doesn't want to work a job. Believe me, I've been over it with him plenty of times, and that's exactly what he's getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like he wants other people to get $14 an hour. like talking politics. He is mysterious LOL
Click to expand...

/——/ End minimum wage so people can earn what they are worth.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to him. To him, it means he wants to get paid $14/hr even if he decides he just doesn't want to work a job. Believe me, I've been over it with him plenty of times, and that's exactly what he's getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like he wants other people to get $14 an hour. like talking politics. He is mysterious LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ End minimum wage so people can earn what they are worth.
Click to expand...

Yep that'll work. That's how we have the worst inequality ever.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> 
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to him. To him, it means he wants to get paid $14/hr even if he decides he just doesn't want to work a job. Believe me, I've been over it with him plenty of times, and that's exactly what he's getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like he wants other people to get $14 an hour. like talking politics. He is mysterious LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ End minimum wage so people can earn what they are worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep that'll work. That's how we have the worst inequality ever.
Click to expand...

/——/ Are you paid less than you are worth? No ones fault but yours,


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it means a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to him. To him, it means he wants to get paid $14/hr even if he decides he just doesn't want to work a job. Believe me, I've been over it with him plenty of times, and that's exactly what he's getting at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like he wants other people to get $14 an hour. like talking politics. He is mysterious LOL
Click to expand...


Not mysterious, extremely dogmatic and impervious to logic and truth. He pops up, spouts off a few nonsense things, than disappears for a while, only to do it all over again. I've pinned him down, he really does want to get paid $14/hr to sit on the couch smoking pot.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
Click to expand...

Your appeal to ignorance is not my straw man.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
Click to expand...

Translation for right wingers; y''all don't really care about the law except in border threads.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't listen to real news super duper.


hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
Click to expand...

Like it is hard to find. You have to be a brainwashed functional moron to miss it.
2008: Worse than the Great Depression?
Aug 27, 2014 · Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history,  ...

Washington Post
Analysis | The 2008 crisis really did start off worse than the Great Depression
Sep 15, 2018 · During the 1930s, “only” a third of U.S. banks failed, while in 2008, former Federal Reserve chairman Ben  ...

Wikipedia › wiki › Great_Recession
Great Recession - Wikipedia
The Great Recession was a period of general economic decline observed in ...... Iceland fell into an economic depression in 2008 following the collapse of its banking system ( see ...


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.


“Equal protection under the law” already exists, dumb ass. You continue to add *nothing* to the threads.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> There was no more work to give them *and way too many people on welfare* for that program.


Thanks to MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And that wasn’t by accident. That was by design. MaObama worked harder than any government employee ever to get as many people on the government plantation as possible in an attempt to ensure perpetual oppressive Dumbocrat power.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Like trickle down?


It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. It’s just a matter of defeating the propaganda of the left...
> 
> Coalition Against Socialized Medicine challenges ‘Medicare for all’ push
> 
> 
> 
> Washington times? I was guessing infowars Nothing like a fair source.
Click to expand...

So you admit you commented in post #1791 without actually having clicked on the link and read the material provided? _Oops_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> “Equal protection under the law” already exists, dumb ass. You continue to add *nothing* to the threads.
Click to expand...

appeals to ignorance of the law is worthless.  why should anybody take You seriously about our border threads?  you don't care about the law except in your bigoted border threads.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation for right wingers; y''all don't really care about the law except in border threads.
Click to expand...

/——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no more work to give them *and way too many people on welfare* for that program.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MaObama and the Dumbocrats. And that wasn’t by accident. That was by design. MaObama worked harder than any government employee ever to get as many people on the government plantation as possible in an attempt to ensure perpetual oppressive Dumbocrat power.
> 
> View attachment 264472
Click to expand...

Another brainwashed functional moron who doesn't know the GOP wrecked our economy in 2008. We had to throw 2 trillion dollars at it and another 5 trillion on welfare and unemployment for the victims. You are idiots totally misinformed
2008: Worse than the Great Depression?
Aug 27, 2014 · Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history,  ...

Washington Post
Analysis | The 2008 crisis really did start off worse than the Great Depression
Sep 15, 2018 · During the 1930s, “only” a third of U.S. banks failed, while in 2008, former Federal Reserve chairman Ben  ...

Wikipedia › wiki › Great_Recession
Great Recession - Wikipedia
The Great Recession was a period of general economic decline observed in ...... Iceland fell into an economic depression in 2008 following the collapse of its banking system ( see ...


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
Click to expand...

With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust. ruining the middle class and infrastructure and investments ever since with his ridiculous final tax rate of 28%. Trump will do it too just like George W bush. You have to be brainwashed and ignorant to vote for the GOP.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation for right wingers; y''all don't really care about the law except in border threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
Click to expand...

a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation for right wingers; y''all don't really care about the law except in border threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...

/——-/ Gibberish


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you don't listen to real news super duper.
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it is hard to find. You have to be a brainwashed functional moron to miss it.
> 2008: Worse than the Great Depression?
> Aug 27, 2014 · Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history,  ...
> 
> View attachment 264470Washington Post
> Analysis | The 2008 crisis really did start off worse than the Great Depression
> Sep 15, 2018 · During the 1930s, “only” a third of U.S. banks failed, while in 2008, former Federal Reserve chairman Ben  ...
> 
> View attachment 264471Wikipedia › wiki › Great_Recession
> Great Recession - Wikipedia
> The Great Recession was a period of general economic decline observed in ...... Iceland fell into an economic depression in 2008 following the collapse of its banking system ( see ...
Click to expand...


Your own link said it was not a depression. Can you ever be honest for a change? Just admit you really didn't know what a depression is.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
Click to expand...

Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.

Would you like to try again?


----------



## P@triot

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Gibberish
Click to expand...

He _tries_ to sound “smart”. But like all low IQ individuals, he doesn’t realize that the rest of us actually understand the words he is using (while he doesn’t) and thus realize he makes 0 sense.

I have him pegged at about 14. We should see a slight improvement in his posts in about 3 years here.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> 
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of *employment at the will of either party*.
Click to expand...

Hey dumb ass? How can we “not care” about something that has *never* existed?


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation for right wingers; y''all don't really care about the law except in border threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Gibberish
Click to expand...

/---/There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

the right wing likes to "gloss over" our last recession.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Gibberish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He _tries_ to sound “smart”. But like all low IQ individuals, he doesn’t realize that the rest of us actually understand the words he is using (while he doesn’t) and thus realize he makes 0 sense.
> 
> I have him pegged at about 14. We should see a slight improvement in his posts in about 3 years here.
Click to expand...

//---Gibberish//


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> 
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of *employment at the will of either party*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass? How can we “not care” about something that has *never* existed?
Click to expand...

Hey, dumber ass, appealing to ignorance won't work in open court.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> 
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of *employment at the will of either party*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass? How can we “not care” about something that has *never* existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dumber ass, appealing to ignorance won't work in open court.
Click to expand...

/——/ “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit.” worked  pretty good.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> 
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of *employment at the will of either party*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumb ass? How can we “not care” about something that has *never* existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, dumber ass, appealing to ignorance won't work in open court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit.” worked  pretty good.
Click to expand...

using the law to your advantage is not necessarily appealing to ignorance. the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance but blame the less fortunate for their appeals to ignorance.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you don't listen to real news super duper.
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the graph?
> Where did you get your PhD in economics again?
> Trump u?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it is hard to find. You have to be a brainwashed functional moron to miss it.
> 2008: Worse than the Great Depression?
> Aug 27, 2014 · Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history,  ...
> 
> View attachment 264470Washington Post
> Analysis | The 2008 crisis really did start off worse than the Great Depression
> Sep 15, 2018 · During the 1930s, “only” a third of U.S. banks failed, while in 2008, former Federal Reserve chairman Ben  ...
> 
> View attachment 264471Wikipedia › wiki › Great_Recession
> Great Recession - Wikipedia
> The Great Recession was a period of general economic decline observed in ...... Iceland fell into an economic depression in 2008 following the collapse of its banking system ( see ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own link said it was not a depression. Can you ever be honest for a change? Just admit you really didn't know what a depression is.
Click to expand...

Not technically a depression, only cost two trillion dollars to be able to say that, brainwashed functional dumbass.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

Of which 80% at least was to avert a full-blown depression and to pay unemployment and welfare to the victims. Obama did not have to change any laws, the unemployment and welfare was already there, brainwashed functional moron.thank you corrupt scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Every time they have 8 years they destroy the world economy. See 1929 1989 and 2008.... If only they could leave the economy Home alone we would be fine. But they have to have a give away to their greedy idiot Rich scumbag Masters....


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

Why reply to a commie benefit sucker who doesn't even know the origin of snowflake? (Pro slavery white boys)
Why not quote the numbers?
And no mention that Obama included war costs that codpiece didn't?
How is the con doing?
Wiped it out yet?
Why don't you post the graph of steady growth for 10 years?
And why hasn't the con created as many jobs as Obama ?
Obamas last 2 years, the cons first 2?
Boy this is tough, the 25th anniversary of les mis concert to some old white fart in Wv!!


----------



## ph3iron

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation to English: you want to be paid merely for existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation for right wingers; y''all don't really care about the law except in border threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ What laws do we not care about? Any specifics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Gibberish
Click to expand...

You do know it started before the dossier?
Drunk trump person in London bragging?


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> 
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you don't listen to real news super duper.
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words mean things, and a depression is a defined event. What we had was not a depression, it was a recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because we spent two trillion dollars with tarp and the stimulus and then 800 billion dollars a year for a few years on welfare and unemployment for victims. If you think it was just a recession, you are a brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a reputable noon-propaganda spewing economist who says the US went through a depression in 08. I'd like to see what they have to say, mini-dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like it is hard to find. You have to be a brainwashed functional moron to miss it.
> 2008: Worse than the Great Depression?
> Aug 27, 2014 · Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve, said the 2008 financial crisis was the worst in global history,  ...
> 
> View attachment 264470Washington Post
> Analysis | The 2008 crisis really did start off worse than the Great Depression
> Sep 15, 2018 · During the 1930s, “only” a third of U.S. banks failed, while in 2008, former Federal Reserve chairman Ben  ...
> 
> View attachment 264471Wikipedia › wiki › Great_Recession
> Great Recession - Wikipedia
> The Great Recession was a period of general economic decline observed in ...... Iceland fell into an economic depression in 2008 following the collapse of its banking system ( see ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own link said it was not a depression. Can you ever be honest for a change? Just admit you really didn't know what a depression is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not technically a depression, only cost two trillion dollars to be able to say that, brainwashed functional dumbass.
Click to expand...


Hey, you're learning. I call that a success. Next week we'll work on your Tourette's.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of which 80% at least was to avert a full-blown depression and to pay unemployment and welfare to the victims. Obama did not have to change any laws, the unemployment and welfare was already there, brainwashed functional moron.thank you corrupt scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Every time they have 8 years they destroy the world economy. See 1929 1989 and 2008.... If only they could leave the economy Home alone we would be fine. But they have to have a give away to their greedy idiot Rich scumbag Masters....
Click to expand...


You sound angry. I'm beginning to think you may not have voted for Trump.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...
Click to expand...

/——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?
Click to expand...

No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of which 80% at least was to avert a full-blown depression and to pay unemployment and welfare to the victims. Obama did not have to change any laws, the unemployment and welfare was already there, brainwashed functional moron.thank you corrupt scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Every time they have 8 years they destroy the world economy. See 1929 1989 and 2008.... If only they could leave the economy Home alone we would be fine. But they have to have a give away to their greedy idiot Rich scumbag Masters....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound angry. I'm beginning to think you may not have voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Any argument at all dingbat?


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> 
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

/——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
Click to expand...

It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
Click to expand...



That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas Reagan tripled the debt, and W bush doubled it, supposedly in good times. The GOP scam goes on with Trump...
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
Click to expand...

There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ “Reagan tripled the debt” Oh so the democRAT controlled Congress who is the only one who can spend money sat back and let Reagan do their job and spend spend spend. Is that what you’re claiming?
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
Click to expand...



You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## ph3iron

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked under President Reagan. It is working under President Trump. Both built the most incredible economies in U.S. history.
> 
> 
> 
> With huge debt and a corrupt bubble bust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake, MaObama added as much to the U.S. debt in 8 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 241 years.
> 
> Would you like to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of which 80% at least was to avert a full-blown depression and to pay unemployment and welfare to the victims. Obama did not have to change any laws, the unemployment and welfare was already there, brainwashed functional moron.thank you corrupt scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Every time they have 8 years they destroy the world economy. See 1929 1989 and 2008.... If only they could leave the economy Home alone we would be fine. But they have to have a give away to their greedy idiot Rich scumbag Masters....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound angry. I'm beginning to think you may not have voted for Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any argument at all dingbat?
Click to expand...


Well there is the mamouth 75000 job creation in May.
Our patriots never mention why the con created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2.
And never seem to read graphs showing continuations of last 10 years


----------



## ph3iron

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Trump u?
Read the M report?


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm claiming he wrecked the country with his giveaway to the rich tax rates wrecking unions and ending the fairness doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?


----------



## Dale Smith

ph3iron said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump u?
> Read the M report?
Click to expand...



I don't participate  in the election process of this banana republic  as I have corrected my legal status and no longer a de-facto employee of USA.INC...with that being said? I trust swamp-rat Mueller and William P Barr about as far as I could toss them. The only Russian collusion I have seen was done on behalf of the DNC and the Hildebeast if that was the point that you were going to make.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. It stifled free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
Click to expand...

 I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.

Hope this helps!!!! 

(snicker)


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
Click to expand...

I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> 
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
Click to expand...


The wealthiest citizens in America pay the largest percentage of income on interest that the foreign owned Federal Reserve central bank charges in order to use their fiat currency backed by nothing of an intrinsic value. You seem to believe that lazy leftards would be subsidized if the RICH paid a higher rate........the fact is that the IRS is merely the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund that took USA.INC into receivership when USA.INC went into bankruptcy yet again in 1950 to provide the 19 enumerated services per their corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.......I know that much, "super dupe".


(snicker)


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> 
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
Click to expand...

/----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
Click to expand...

Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
Click to expand...

/-—-/ Ahhhh good old class envy when all of your other fake outrages fail.


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-—-/ Ahhhh good old class envy when all of your other fake outrages fail.
Click to expand...

I just dislike the greedy idiot lying GOP Rich, dumbass dupe. Google the only tax graph you need to know and read it. Try reality.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-—-/ Ahhhh good old class envy when all of your other fake outrages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just dislike the greedy idiot lying GOP Rich, dumbass dupe. Google the only tax graph you need to know and read it. Try reality.
Click to expand...

/----/ How do you feel about the greedy idiot lying democRAT rich, dumbass dupe?


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
Click to expand...

/——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds. 
*The one tax graph you really need to know*
By Ezra Klein
September 19, 2012


----------



## ph3iron

Dale Smith said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It  stifled fake speech and garbage propaganda, super dupe.and stopped the country from going crazy over politics and mainly brainwashed with b*******. Like you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious......coming from an admitted commie that touts those like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The demcrat party was hijacked by the commies decades ago. You revel in your ignorance.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no communists except those with a gun to their head or bought off in China Vietnam and North Korea. You are a brainwashed functional moron. Go back to the fiat currency channel or whatever it is LOL. I am a socialist as defined everywhere in the world but cold war dinosaur America. Fair capitalism with a great safety net.. instead we have garbage GOP inequality and terrible upward Mobility too. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a clueless, brainwashed moron......nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump u?
> Read the M report?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't participate  in the election process of this banana republic  as I have corrected my legal status and no longer a de-facto employee of USA.INC...with that being said? I trust swamp-rat Mueller and William P Barr about as far as I could toss them. The only Russian collusion I have seen was done on behalf of the DNC and the Hildebeast if that was the point that you were going to make.
Click to expand...

Hildabeast?
No point in replying to a small made up mind.
Go down well at your trumpies u meetings?


----------



## ph3iron

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
Click to expand...


How many times has Hilary been charged and convicted over the last 40 years?
Zero?
I guess the last was sweaty treys 6 Benghazi investigations?
And the con man complains about mueller which more than paid for itself.
I guess you believe the cons $40MM?


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> 
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-—-/ Ahhhh good old class envy when all of your other fake outrages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just dislike the greedy idiot lying GOP Rich, dumbass dupe. Google the only tax graph you need to know and read it. Try reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ How do you feel about the greedy idiot lying democRAT rich, dumbass dupe?
Click to expand...

They want to raise their own taxes and invest in America, dumbass. Unfortunately we need 60 votes to do it. GOP only needs 51 with their reconciliation law to cut taxes on the rich and services on the rest. Change the channel and get some reality....


----------



## francoHFW

Cellblock2429 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any actual argument with the facts, dingbat dupe?
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
Click to expand...

It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
Click to expand...

/——-/ 
*Wealthy People Do Pay a Larger Share *
The Pew Center’s analysis of IRS data showed that in 2014, people with an adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid 51.6% of all individual income taxes, even though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed. These “wealthy” individuals paid an average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) of 25.7%.
By contrast, while people with adjusted gross incomes below $50,000 filed 62% of all individual returns in 2014, they paid only 5.7% of total taxes collected at an average tax rate of 4.3% per person.


----------



## Cellblock2429

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-—-/ Ahhhh good old class envy when all of your other fake outrages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just dislike the greedy idiot lying GOP Rich, dumbass dupe. Google the only tax graph you need to know and read it. Try reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ How do you feel about the greedy idiot lying democRAT rich, dumbass dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want to raise their own taxes and invest in America, dumbass. Unfortunately we need 60 votes to do it. GOP only needs 51 with their reconciliation law to cut taxes on the rich and services on the rest. Change the channel and get some reality....
Click to expand...

/——/ What’s stopping the rich democRATs from voluntary making additional payments to the Treasury ?
 Do the rich democRATs tell their accountants not to take any allowable deductions?
Why are rich democRATs in high tax states complaining about the Trump limit on SALT and why is Fredo Cuomo in NY trying to do a work around with charitable donations to the state?
Why Why Why?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-—-/ Ahhhh good old class envy when all of your other fake outrages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just dislike the greedy idiot lying GOP Rich, dumbass dupe. Google the only tax graph you need to know and read it. Try reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ How do you feel about the greedy idiot lying democRAT rich, dumbass dupe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They want to raise their own taxes and invest in America, dumbass. Unfortunately we need 60 votes to do it. GOP only needs 51 with their reconciliation law to cut taxes on the rich and services on the rest. Change the channel and get some reality....
Click to expand...


They don't want to raise their own taxes, mini-dupe, they want to raise everybody else's taxes. There's nothing stopping them from not hiring armies of tax attorneys and taking every deduction they can. Also, they talk about raising taxes they don't pay. Notice that large amounts of their income is in the form of capital gains, not regular income. They normally don't say they want to raise the capital gains tax.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
Click to expand...



ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"

Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
 I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here. 

Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?


----------



## Thinker101

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> 
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
Click to expand...


Yikes, you have extra ones?


----------



## Dale Smith

ph3iron said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly know and understand more about what is going on and what has happened than you by a factor of at least a thousand. I laugh at little commie minions/useful idiots like yourself that once ran from the label of "socialist" know your ilk runs towards claiming that the failed system of socialism would thrive here in America. You haven't a clue as to how this fiat currency/debt slavery system actually works..... and that is first and foremost the issue that morons like you can't understand.
> 
> Hope this helps!!!!
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate has ruined the middle class and the country. When Reagan changed the tax rate on the rich, people saved at a 7% rate, now they are 7% in debt. Great job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times has Hilary been charged and convicted over the last 40 years?
> Zero?
> I guess the last was sweaty treys 6 Benghazi investigations?
> And the con man complains about mueller which more than paid for itself.
> I guess you believe the cons $40MM?
Click to expand...




The Bush and Clinton crime families are untouchable and part of the elite class. The Clintons and the Bush clan are guilty of everything from drug running and child trafficking to ordering hit teams to take out assets that no longer are of use to them. You live in a fantasy world, obviously and totally stuck in your little "left versus right" paradigm.
Don't forget to wave that rainbow colored demo fag flag whenever you can so "da peoples" know where you stand!

(snicker)


----------



## Dale Smith

Thinker101 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----*/ "I know that a giveaway to the rich GOP tax rate "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
Click to expand...


I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google the only tax graph you need to know, brainwashed functional moron. If you count all taxes everyone is paying between 20 and 30% and the middle class and the country continue to go to hell.No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share, right, super duper?
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
Click to expand...

You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.


----------



## Thinker101

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
Click to expand...


And you're thinking the government taking over student loans didn't have anything to do with expensive schools...dumbass.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ I did and it’s 6 years out of date. Meaningless, so I didn’t read past the date line.  A waste of my 15 seconds.
> *The one tax graph you really need to know*
> By Ezra Klein
> September 19, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.

(snicker)


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has only gotten worse since, dumbass dupe. Look at the graph, add state and local taxes 2 federal taxes and everyone pays between 20 and 30%. The top 1% actually pays less now than the middle class. Great job. It is actually 12 years old and has only gotten worse dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
Click to expand...

Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
Click to expand...



ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.
Click to expand...

He did it for public universities. Can you read?


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> 
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did it for public universities. Can you read?
Click to expand...



ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.

 Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did it for public universities. Can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.
> 
> Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.
Click to expand...

I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.


----------



## thereisnospoon

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law to solve simple poverty.  it is the right and moral thing to do.  only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/: Take your hate filled Strawman argument and shove it. It’s democRATs who need a permanent underclass to maintain their base. It was Obozo who turned back welfare to work reform that was so successful in reducing poverty. It was Obozo who stopped the Washington DC charter schools that were helping Black kids get a quality education. Here is our platform: Republican Party on Welfare & Poverty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama stopped the welfare-to-work program because of the gigantic corrupt GOP 2008 World depression, dumbass. There was no more work to give them and way too many people on welfare for that program. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you. Did you hear about the world depression LOL? Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to avert a full-blown depression and to assist the victims. You live on an imaginary planet of garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mini-dupe propaganda believer, it wasn't a depression.
Click to expand...

I see franco has maintained his fiery irrational and hate filled rhetoric.
What people like him do not wish to understand is they are that which they claim to hate.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did it for public universities. Can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.
> 
> Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
Click to expand...


You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did it for public universities. Can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.
> 
> Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
Click to expand...

My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.


----------



## francoHFW

Every other country has a progressive tax system except us, thanks to the giveaway to the rich GOP tax rates and policies. Why are we the only country without Healthcare daycare paid parental leave living wage great vacations and infrastructure cheap college and training. The scumbag brainwashing GOP end of story.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuition to attend college? He did it for ALL colleges? Hey, dumb ass, your beloved "gubermint" IS a corporation with thousands of subsidiaries, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> He did it for public universities. Can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.
> 
> Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
Click to expand...


Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?

What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did it for public universities. Can you read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.
> 
> Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
Click to expand...

Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Reagan raised tuitions for ALL public colleges or did he stop the Federal "gubermint" from subsidizing costs? States canj subsidize. They certainly seem to have the funds to give illegals free tuition.
> 
> Did you know that all colleges are incorporated????? Colleges know that guaranteed  student loans is a license to up the ante and they know that since students have no clue about how the extension of credit REALLY works? They "borrow" as much as they can and never worry about the repercussions until afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
Click to expand...



Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?

And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
Click to expand...

The rich pay too little in taxes and the rest pay too much. Worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Thanks GOP.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> 
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rich pay too little in taxes and the rest pay too much. Worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Thanks GOP.
Click to expand...



No one should be taxed on their labor regardless of how much their skills are worth. AGAIN, a progressive income tax is a plank of the communist agenda. What part of that do you not understand, "comrade"??


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking politics and history. God knows what you're talkin about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
Click to expand...

Rich countries are Scandinavia the UK the original EU Canada Japan Australia and New Zealand and Canada. We have are the richest and have the worst benefits by far. They have that but that is not everything at all Japan has 270%  of their GDP. and most of it is because of the scumbag GOP starting economic meltdowns. That we pay for.


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> 
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich countries are Scandinavia the UK the original EU Canada Japan Australia and New Zealand and Canada. We have are the richest and have the worst benefits by far. They have that but that is not everything at all Japan has 270%  of their GDP. and most of it is because of the scumbag GOP starting economic meltdowns. That we pay for.
Click to expand...


Let's see some proof of that with some factual data. I looked up Sweden's economy and they are taxed at around 61 percent.......does that sound good to you????


----------



## Dale Smith

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in over your head, franki. You believe that by stealing the earnings of others to garner favor for those without that you and your ilk could create this commie utopia. Remember, a "gubermint" powerful enough to give you all that you want is powerful enough to take it away at their whims.
> 
> 
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich countries are Scandinavia the UK the original EU Canada Japan Australia and New Zealand and Canada. We have are the richest and have the worst benefits by far. They have that but that is not everything at all Japan has 270%  of their GDP. and most of it is because of the scumbag GOP starting economic meltdowns. That we pay for.
Click to expand...


The average  Canadian citizen is on the hook for 37,837 dollars for their debt.......they are "rich"?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Lil franki SEZ????? "Listen too me u duper the rich due knot pay enough to my beloved gubermint to pay for my safety net you super duper dupe!!!"
> 
> Listen up, lil franki, taxes are nothing but legalized theft. Your beloved "gubermint" has lost track of trillions of dollars but your STUPID cure is to give them more?!?! Even if "da gubermint" wasn't a big corporate entity rife with thievery and corruption,
> I would rather burn my extra Federal Reserve notes than to contribute to your care and all these third world illegals squatting here.
> 
> Are we clear on this, ya little commie fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, you have extra ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing pretty good and I decide whom I am going to give a hand up to.....I don't need little commie fucks like franki deciding for me while skimming off the top as an "admin fee" either. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You jackasses have made public university about 20 times more expensive and our infrastructure is falling apart, and it is certainly not the middle class and the working-class who are paying too little. It is the rich who are getting all the New wealth. Shove your fiat currency up your ass nobody gives a s*** idiot. not to want to hear the truth makes you a s*** citizen also, conspiracy Nut Job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO!! Nice meltdown, dumb ass!!! You are beyond clueless. Why you are blaming non-leftards for high tuition rates to go to colleges full of commie professors is anyone's guess.  Taxing one's labor is the reason as to why people came here to begin with. People barter their labor in exchange for paper scrip notes with no intrinsic value so why does USA.INC believe that they are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of it? They didn't do 25 to 30 percent of the job I was tasked with. There isn't a fucking bit of difference of what the serfs had to endure under a monarchy where they had to give "the king" half their crops for farming on what he claimed was "His land". You really are a stupid little commie fuck. You and "truth" don't even have a nodding acquaintance with each other. You are one of the "moron millions" class and you get your ass kicked yet again.
> 
> (snicker)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan started with California public universities when he was governor in the 60s that's half of what they were protesting about.... Since then Republican have done the same thing across the country wake up and smell the coffee you brain-dead conspiracy fiat currency scriptnotes moron. All to pay for tax cuts for giant corporations and greedy billionaires who run the GOP propaganda machine. Pure garbage
Click to expand...


Hey look, propaganda man strikes again.


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich countries are Scandinavia the UK the original EU Canada Japan Australia and New Zealand and Canada. We have are the richest and have the worst benefits by far. They have that but that is not everything at all Japan has 270%  of their GDP. and most of it is because of the scumbag GOP starting economic meltdowns. That we pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see some proof of that with some factual data. I looked up Sweden's economy and they are taxed at around 61 percent.......does that sound good to you????
Click to expand...

You get what you pay for.


----------



## francoHFW

Dale Smith said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> My utopia works fine in every other rich country. Only propaganda makes this garbage possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which socialist country isn't drowning in debt? They all have a central bank that extends "credit" from an empty vault and then charges interest on "money" created out of thin air. A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto....did you know that?
> 
> What makes you believe that you are entitled to benefit from the work of others by stealing from them via the threat of a gun and arrest? Just come out and admit that you are a communist and be done with it.  Lenin referred to your kind as "useful idiots".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other rich country is socialist and most of their debt is bailing out their economies after the corrupt GOP meltdown of 2008 just like us. I am not communist in any respect dildo dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name them and what is the debt that they owe? You never answered the question of why should a big percentage of what I receive in compensation for my labor be redistributed under the threat of violence and detention in a prison?
> 
> And "yes", you are a commie.....if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....has webbed feet and an orange bill? Then it is indeed a duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rich pay too little in taxes and the rest pay too much. Worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Thanks GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be taxed on their labor regardless of how much their skills are worth. AGAIN, a progressive income tax is a plank of the communist agenda. What part of that do you not understand, "comrade"??
Click to expand...

Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes... Link to your communist BS? They also believe in a dictatorship that owns all industry and business and you can't find a person in a free country that believes in it, only on your imaginary propaganda planet.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Our patriots never mention why the con created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2.


I’ve actually explained this many times, mindless little minion. The problem is, being a mindless little minion, you can’t remember.

Obama didn’t “create” shit. When he was getting all of his policies (with a Dumbocrat-controlled Congress) in his first two years, he took unemployment from 7.8% to 10.3%. The success during his final two terms was due to *total* Republican control, coast-to-coast.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Our patriots never mention why the con created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2.


It’s so comical to listen to the left-wing mindless minions cry that Republicans “obstructed” Obama in his final two years, and then in their next breath, claim that Obama created sooooo much prosperity in his final two years.

Yes folks, the left really is that dumb. That’s what makes them leftists!


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Thanks GOP.


That occurred under MaObama and the Dumbocrats in 2009 and 2010...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...


Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.

Fuck’n moron.


----------



## xband

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?



Eliminate all welfare including food stamps.


----------



## danielpalos

xband said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate all welfare including food stamps.
Click to expand...

a work requirement is unlawful in an at-will employment State. 

why are the Poor burdened with a work requirement under Capitalism?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never mention why the con created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s so comical to listen to the left-wing mindless minions cry that Republicans “obstructed” Obama in his final two years, and then in their next breath, claim that Obama created sooooo much prosperity in his final two years.
> 
> Yes folks, the left really is that dumb. That’s what makes them leftists!
Click to expand...

Then why did Obama create more jobs in his last 2 years than the con did in his first 2?
I notice you only gave a dumb zero college insult ?
Forgot the grim reapers promise?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Thanks GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> That occurred under MaObama and the Dumbocrats in 2009 and 2010...
Click to expand...

Maobama, dumbocrats ?
Is this really the extent of your life?
Enjoying your socialist benefits?
Do I have to publish the graph which shows upward growth for 10 yearsafter the Great Depression?
Notice you didn't mention may s 75000 jobs?


----------



## ph3iron

xband said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate all welfare including food stamps.
Click to expand...

SS and Medicare too?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never mention why the con created fewer jobs in his first 2 years than Obama did in his last 2.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve actually explained this many times, mindless little minion. The problem is, being a mindless little minion, you can’t remember.
> 
> Obama didn’t “create” shit. When he was getting all of his policies (with a Dumbocrat-controlled Congress) in his first two years, he took unemployment from 7.8% to 10.3%. The success during his final two terms was due to *total* Republican control, coast-to-coast.
> 
> View attachment 265254
Click to expand...

A link One more time please
WO the dumb insult if you can compose a sentence wo one?
Oh I see it was all the repubs?
I guess the dem congress reduced the cons job creation?
How about hills 30000 emails uranium and Vince Foster?


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
Click to expand...

the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate all welfare including food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a work requirement is unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> why are the Poor burdened with a work requirement under Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Cite the law. The actual text, not what you wish it said.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
Click to expand...


Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate all welfare including food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a work requirement is unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> why are the Poor burdened with a work requirement under Capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cite the law. The actual text, not what you wish it said.
Click to expand...

that is the common law understanding of employment at the will of either party.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate all welfare including food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a work requirement is unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> why are the Poor burdened with a work requirement under Capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cite the law. The actual text, not what you wish it said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is the common law understanding of employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


No, it is not, and you did exactly what I thought you would do. Cite the actual law that you think is being violated.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?
Click to expand...

Because the GOP are scumbag give away to the rich, screw the rest assholes, brainwashed functional moron. Obama did a lot of good stuff but we can't change the tax system or get real reform until we get 60 votes. The GOP only cares about cutting taxes on the rich and giant corporations, dumbass. The middle class and the country have gone to hell the last 35 years.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years


No, you dysfunctional moron, they haven’t. At all. The GOP hasn’t “redistributed” shit to the wealthy.

Stop parroting the ignorant battle cry of the entitled lazy _asshole_.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Obama did a lot of good stuff


He did? Like what? Like raising unemployment to over 10%? Or like increasing the national debt by over $10 *trillion*? Or like setting the record for Americans on food stamps? Or perhaps you mean weaponizing government to attack and oppress anyone who didn’t embrace his ideology? Or was it his weakening of America you liked best?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee




----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years
> 
> 
> 
> No, you dysfunctional moron, they haven’t. At all. The GOP hasn’t “redistributed” shit to the wealthy.
> 
> Stop parroting the ignorant battle cry of the entitled lazy _asshole_.
Click to expand...

Actually that's the fact, hater doop. I am happily retired. You are talking about what we all used to call the unfortunate because people all want to have good jobs etc. But you are brainwashed into hating the unfortunate. Enjoy hell. When you have a flat tax system like we have now if you count all taxes the rich make out like bandits and the rest gets screwed with expensive college Healthcare you name it and bad infrastructure. Half the country makes less than $30,000 a year.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?
Click to expand...

Reconciliation law passed by the GOP means you only need 51 votes to cut taxes on the rich and services on everyone else-all they want to do. So GOP scam. Democrats need 60 for reform. Only propaganda makes this disastrous GOP possible. + Racism of course.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did a lot of good stuff
> 
> 
> 
> He did? Like what? Like raising unemployment to over 10%? Or like increasing the national debt by over $10 *trillion*? Or like setting the record for Americans on food stamps? Or perhaps you mean weaponizing government to attack and oppress anyone who didn’t embrace his ideology? Or was it his weakening of America you liked best?
Click to expand...

So you are one of those dupes who doesn't know about the 2008 GOP World depression. It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims. Obama just turned it around.


----------



## francoHFW

Deplorable Yankee said:


>


socialism is simply fair capitalism with a good safety net for the unfortunate. Everywhere but GOP propaganda world.


----------



## danielpalos

Deplorable Yankee said:


>


We should not need the Socialism of Government, if Capitalism is so wonderful.


----------



## Flopper

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


What you are neglecting is that the group that dropped 80% are not typical nor significant part of food stamp participants.  They were able-bodied adults ages 18-49 without dependents who were required to find at least part time work.  They are not the chronic welfare recipients.  Furthermore this group was monitored and received help finding jobs that most welfare recipients do not receive.  During that time period the unemployment rate for that age group fell by nearly 50%.  Considering the above, a decrease of 80% is not that remarkable.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the GOP are scumbag give away to the rich, screw the rest assholes, brainwashed functional moron. Obama did a lot of good stuff but we can't change the tax system or get real reform until we get 60 votes. The GOP only cares about cutting taxes on the rich and giant corporations, dumbass. The middle class and the country have gone to hell the last 35 years.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you're admitting that you know they won't give you what you want, super mini-dupe. Yet you reward then with your vote. How foolish.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconciliation law passed by the GOP means you only need 51 votes to cut taxes on the rich and services on everyone else-all they want to do. So GOP scam. Democrats need 60 for reform. Only propaganda makes this disastrous GOP possible. + Racism of course.
Click to expand...


So you admit you're throwing away your vote.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.


Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
Click to expand...

Any connection between you and reality is purely coincidental... Every time the GOP gets in with their corrupt deregulation and cronyism we get another corrupt bubble and bust 1929 1989 2008. And they only cut taxes on the rich in the long run at least and that means higher state and local taxes which kill the Non rich and cuts in services like cheap college and training daycare Healthcare infrastructure. Only garbage propaganda and brainwashed fools like you make it possible. And you just totally missed the 2008 World depression caused by GOP corruption and deregulation. Poor America.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Somalia then, brainwashed functional Moron LOL, if you think there should be no taxes...
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconciliation law passed by the GOP means you only need 51 votes to cut taxes on the rich and services on everyone else-all they want to do. So GOP scam. Democrats need 60 for reform. Only propaganda makes this disastrous GOP possible. + Racism of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you're throwing away your vote.
Click to expand...

The Democrats are the only hope to get us out of this corrupt GOP mess,and I am talking the last 35 to 50 years. Worst inequality and upward Mobility ever. next time we should use the nuclear option and pass all we want and then let the GOP try and recall them. even a totally obstructed Obama did much more good than idiot Republicans ever will....


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
Click to expand...

monies for the Poor are typically spent sooner rather than later.  eight trillion dollars was "infused" into the economy by the Poor.  The right glosses over the social bailout via command economics, that made that possible.


----------



## danielpalos

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any connection between you and reality is purely coincidental... Every time the GOP gets in with their corrupt deregulation and cronyism we get another corrupt bubble and bust 1929 1989 2008. And they only cut taxes on the rich in the long run at least and that means higher state and local taxes which kill the Non rich and cuts in services like cheap college and training daycare Healthcare infrastructure. Only garbage propaganda and brainwashed fools like you make it possible. And you just totally missed the 2008 World depression caused by GOP corruption and deregulation. Poor America.
Click to expand...

Why should Anyone on the left take the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move to Cuba then, dysfunctional mindless minion, if you think wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. “LOL”.
> 
> Fuck’n moron.
> 
> 
> 
> the GOP has been redistributing the wealth to the rich for 35 years, incredibly dumbass ignoramus brainwashed functional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, those poor useless democrats, can't do a thing, even when they're in power. Tell me again why you keep voting for them when they never give you what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconciliation law passed by the GOP means you only need 51 votes to cut taxes on the rich and services on everyone else-all they want to do. So GOP scam. Democrats need 60 for reform. Only propaganda makes this disastrous GOP possible. + Racism of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you're throwing away your vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Democrats are the only hope to get us out of this corrupt GOP mess,and I am talking the last 35 to 50 years. Worst inequality and upward Mobility ever. next time we should use the nuclear option and pass all we want and then let the GOP try and recall them. even a totally obstructed Obama did much more good than idiot Republicans ever will....
Click to expand...


Keep wasting your vote then, because they are playing you like a fiddle. They have your vote locked down and never have to give you anything. And never will.


----------



## P@triot

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> even a totally obstructed Obama did much more good than idiot Republicans ever will....
> 
> 
> 
> Keep wasting your vote then, because they are playing you like a fiddle. They have your vote locked down and never have to give you anything. And never will.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. They give him _feelz_. And he loooooves his feelz. As Chris Matthews infamously stated...the Dumbocrats send a "tingle" up Franco's leg.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> which kill the Non rich and cuts in services like cheap college


The cost of college *doesn't* change, you ignorant dysfunctional dolt. Only the out of pocket cost for the consumer changes. Harvard is $65,000 either way. The question is - should the poor pay for it (as you ignorantly want) or should the person who wants the Harvard degree pay for it (as logical people want).

"Free" college is the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy in the history of man. It will ensure that people who never attended college, pay for it the rest of their lives from _every_ pay check, while the people who attended the college will make exponentially more than those people who never attended (and yet _still_ paid for someone else to go).

You're literally so ignorant of basic economics, that you can't even figure out that the policies you advocate for actually hurt the causes you think you're fighting for. That's how dumb you are. It's comical. Seriously.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> monies for the Poor are typically spent sooner rather than later.  eight trillion dollars was "infused" into the economy by the Poor.  The right glosses over the social bailout via command economics, that made that possible.
Click to expand...


And you're glossing over the opportunity cost.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any connection between you and reality is purely coincidental... Every time the GOP gets in with their corrupt deregulation and cronyism we get another corrupt bubble and bust 1929 1989 2008. And they only cut taxes on the rich in the long run at least and that means higher state and local taxes which kill the Non rich and cuts in services like cheap college and training daycare Healthcare infrastructure. Only garbage propaganda and brainwashed fools like you make it possible. And you just totally missed the 2008 World depression caused by GOP corruption and deregulation. Poor America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Anyone on the left take the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...


Because they are correct.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any connection between you and reality is purely coincidental... Every time the GOP gets in with their corrupt deregulation and cronyism we get another corrupt bubble and bust 1929 1989 2008. And they only cut taxes on the rich in the long run at least and that means higher state and local taxes which kill the Non rich and cuts in services like cheap college and training daycare Healthcare infrastructure. Only garbage propaganda and brainwashed fools like you make it possible. And you just totally missed the 2008 World depression caused by GOP corruption and deregulation. Poor America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Anyone on the left take the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are correct.
Click to expand...

So where do you think the corrupt bubble is this time? the GOP is always good for one. That we will have to pay for....


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did a lot of good stuff
> 
> 
> 
> He did? Like what? Like raising unemployment to over 10%? Or like increasing the national debt by over $10 *trillion*? Or like setting the record for Americans on food stamps? Or perhaps you mean weaponizing government to attack and oppress anyone who didn’t embrace his ideology? Or was it his weakening of America you liked best?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are one of those dupes who doesn't know about the 2008 GOP World depression. It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims. Obama just turned it around.
Click to expand...


I've schooled you on this, but apparently you weren't paying attention. It wasn't a depression.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any connection between you and reality is purely coincidental... Every time the GOP gets in with their corrupt deregulation and cronyism we get another corrupt bubble and bust 1929 1989 2008. And they only cut taxes on the rich in the long run at least and that means higher state and local taxes which kill the Non rich and cuts in services like cheap college and training daycare Healthcare infrastructure. Only garbage propaganda and brainwashed fools like you make it possible. And you just totally missed the 2008 World depression caused by GOP corruption and deregulation. Poor America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should Anyone on the left take the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do you think the corrupt bubble is this time? the GOP is always good for one. That we will have to pay for....
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter who created the bubble, you're going to blame the GOP, mini-dupe. You're incapable of anything else.


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are neglecting is that the group that dropped 80% are not typical nor significant part of food stamp participants.  They were able-bodied adults ages 18-49 without dependents who were required to find at least part time work.  They are not the chronic welfare recipients.  Furthermore this group was monitored and received help finding jobs that most welfare recipients do not receive.  During that time period the unemployment rate for that age group fell by nearly 50%.  Considering the above, a decrease of 80% is not that remarkable.
Click to expand...


Also this group is only eligible to get 90 days of food stamps every 3 years.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> monies for the Poor are typically spent sooner rather than later.  eight trillion dollars was "infused" into the economy by the Poor.  The right glosses over the social bailout via command economics, that made that possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're glossing over the opportunity cost.
Click to expand...

we already had a Recession.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cost 8 trillion dollars to avert and give unemployment and welfare to the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it cost $8 trillion sink the world into chaos. Which is just what Obama and the Dumbocrats did. It cost absolutely nothing to pull us out - as proven by Republicans. It doesn't cost anything to cut regulations and cut taxes. It only requires an understanding of basic economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> monies for the Poor are typically spent sooner rather than later.  eight trillion dollars was "infused" into the economy by the Poor.  The right glosses over the social bailout via command economics, that made that possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're glossing over the opportunity cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we already had a Recession.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by that?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we already had a Recession.


We always do when the Dumbocrats are in charge.


----------



## P@triot

The formula is so simple. Conservatives have shown us the blueprint for prosperity for 243 years now. We just have to follow it.


> America is now the largest producer of gas and oil in the world, soon to be the largest exporter as well. The U.S. economy is booming. Iran’s is imploding.


Cut taxes. Eliminate government interference. Facilitate affordable energy production. Ensure a level playing field with foreign markets. Boom. Instant powerhouse economy.

The US Can Afford to Stay Calm With Iran


----------



## P@triot

The formula is so simple. Conservatives have shown us the blueprint for prosperity for 243 years now. We just have to follow it.


> There are 6.7 million job openings and just 6.4 million available workers to fill them, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Cut taxes. Eliminate government interference. Facilitate affordable energy production. Ensure a level playing field with foreign markets. Boom. Instant powerhouse economy.

There are more jobs than people out of work, something the American economy has never experienced before


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. All we need to do is reject/ignore liberalism and we will experience unprecedented prosperity.

Hungary’s Unique Approach to Helping Migrants


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity....


> I think his anti-regulation attitude is why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. Trump sent a message to business: Government will no longer try to crush you. Businesses then started hiring.


We have experienced unprecedented prosperity because *President Trump* and the Republicans implemented the blueprint.

Trump's Deregulation Promise


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity....
> 
> 
> 
> I think his anti-regulation attitude is why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. Trump sent a message to business: Government will no longer try to crush you. Businesses then started hiring.
> 
> 
> 
> We have experienced unprecedented prosperity because *President Trump* and the Republicans implemented the blueprint.
> 
> Trump's Deregulation Promise
Click to expand...

still taking credit for general trends?  

the "black guy" turned a Recession around.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity....
> 
> 
> 
> I think his anti-regulation attitude is why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. Trump sent a message to business: Government will no longer try to crush you. Businesses then started hiring.
> 
> 
> 
> We have experienced unprecedented prosperity because *President Trump* and the Republicans implemented the blueprint.
> 
> Trump's Deregulation Promise
Click to expand...

Yup. Detroit water must be in favor.
Any idea why Obama created more jobs than the con?
I thought the market was down this year?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. All we need to do is reject/ignore liberalism and we will experience unprecedented prosperity.
> 
> Hungary’s Unique Approach to Helping Migrants


Shoot all the women and kids at the border that's what I say.
You can't be for the Hungarian Nazi can you?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity....
> 
> 
> 
> I think his anti-regulation attitude is why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. Trump sent a message to business: Government will no longer try to crush you. Businesses then started hiring.
> 
> 
> 
> We have experienced unprecedented prosperity because *President Trump* and the Republicans implemented the blueprint.
> 
> Trump's Deregulation Promise
Click to expand...


I took the required antacid before I looked at your link.
The daily signal????!!!!
Please tell me you don't read that drivel.
Do they believe we landed on the moon yet.?
How are the old white fart supremist meetings these days?
Still in favor of Ben banning German immigrants ?
"They are swarthy, can't speak English and are taking our jobs"
Sound familiar?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already had a Recession.
> 
> 
> 
> We always do when the Dumbocrats are in charge.
Click to expand...

Dumbocrats, the limit of our patriots intelligence.
Dead giveaway for zero college


----------



## ph3iron

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity....
> 
> 
> 
> I think his anti-regulation attitude is why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. Trump sent a message to business: Government will no longer try to crush you. Businesses then started hiring.
> 
> 
> 
> We have experienced unprecedented prosperity because *President Trump* and the Republicans implemented the blueprint.
> 
> Trump's Deregulation Promise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still taking credit for general trends?
> 
> the "black guy" turned a Recession around.
Click to expand...

Our patriots have no idea how to find graphs and never post one


----------



## ph3iron

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity....
> 
> 
> 
> I think his anti-regulation attitude is why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. Trump sent a message to business: Government will no longer try to crush you. Businesses then started hiring.
> 
> 
> 
> We have experienced unprecedented prosperity because *President Trump* and the Republicans implemented the blueprint.
> 
> Trump's Deregulation Promise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still taking credit for general trends?
> 
> the "black guy" turned a Recession around.
Click to expand...

Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the "black guy" turned a Recession around.


The party of racism doing what they do best. The left _only_ sees color.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!


Uh...the graph shows that things got _progressively_ worse (pun intended) in 2009 and 2010 to the point where we were in the verge of a second Great Depression.

It wasn’t until MaObama took his “shellacking” and Republicans has control coast-to-coast that we started to see a recovery. Thanks for playing Ph3iron, but your game is as weak as your mind.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Any idea why Obama created more jobs than the con?


MaObama took unemployment from 7% (when he was sworn in) to over 10%. Jobs were created after Republicans took control coast-to-coast.

When *President Trump* took office, unemployment was relatively low. He has taken it down to record lows. Tough to create jobs when you’ve already created record low unemployment. Can’t go much lower.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!


The “graphs” show that in 2009 and 2010 (when Dumbocrats had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House), the U.S. deteriorated into a near great depression. The “graphs” then show that things starts to turn around after the Republicans gave MaObama a “shellacking” (his own word).

Read the graphs, sweetie.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the "black guy" turned a Recession around.
> 
> 
> 
> The party of racism doing what they do best. The left _only_ sees color.
Click to expand...

...you are on the right wing, you must be right.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the graph shows that things got _progressively_ worse (pun intended) in 2009 and 2010 to the point where we were in the verge of a second Great Depression.
> 
> It wasn’t until MaObama took his “shellacking” and Republicans has control coast-to-coast that we started to see a recovery. Thanks for playing Ph3iron, but your game is as weak as your mind.
Click to expand...


Can't you post w/o a dumb kindergarten insult?
Pathetic
Yup, the worst recession since the 20s?, codpiece George's inheritance.
Obama saved old white farts like you
I guess Obama created the 750000 a month job loss?
Keep enjoying your commie benefits.
I like your weak explanation of why Obama created more jobs in his last 2 years than the con did in his first 2 
Al we need is a Great Recession to have explosive job growth!!!!!
How's daily signal these days?
I see the con is pleading for a better supporter than knees news?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why Obama created more jobs than the con?
> 
> 
> 
> MaObama took unemployment from 7% (when he was sworn in) to over 10%. Jobs were created after Republicans took control coast-to-coast.
> 
> When *President Trump* took office, unemployment was relatively low. He has taken it down to record lows. Tough to create jobs when you’ve already created record low unemployment. Can’t go much lower.
Click to expand...

What was the unemployment after the recession the uppity nixxer created again?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!
> 
> 
> 
> The “graphs” show that in 2009 and 2010 (when Dumbocrats had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House), the U.S. deteriorated into a near great depression. The “graphs” then show that things starts to turn around after the Republicans gave MaObama a “shellacking” (his own word).
> 
> Read the graphs, sweetie.
Click to expand...

I do, apparently you can't see the gradual 10 year improvement.
Nice picking of 2 years that support your blind made up mind.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the graph shows that things got _progressively_ worse (pun intended) in 2009 and 2010 to the point where we were in the verge of a second Great Depression.
> 
> It wasn’t until MaObama took his “shellacking” and Republicans has control coast-to-coast that we started to see a recovery. Thanks for playing Ph3iron, but your game is as weak as your mind.
Click to expand...

Omg WHAT A PUN I collapsed on the floor appreciating.
As the patriot said "euros say we don't get irony"
Euro "apparently"
Let me know when you get it


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!
> 
> 
> 
> The “graphs” show that in 2009 and 2010 (when Dumbocrats had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House), the U.S. deteriorated into a near great depression. The “graphs” then show that things starts to turn around after the Republicans gave MaObama a “shellacking” (his own word).
> 
> Read the graphs, sweetie.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't read the breitbart graphs
Is this the blip you are speaking for?
United States Gross National Product | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our patriots never look at graphs, just spout daily signal!!
> 
> 
> 
> The “graphs” show that in 2009 and 2010 (when Dumbocrats had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House), the U.S. deteriorated into a near great depression. The “graphs” then show that things starts to turn around after the Republicans gave MaObama a “shellacking” (his own word).
> 
> Read the graphs, sweetie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I don't read the breitbart graphs
> Is this the blip you are speaking for?
> United States Gross National Product | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar
Click to expand...

Was 2018 a shellacking ?
Whoops no a couple in the senate?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why Obama created more jobs than the con?
> 
> 
> 
> MaObama took unemployment from 7% (when he was sworn in) to over 10%. Jobs were created after Republicans took control coast-to-coast.
> 
> When *President Trump* took office, unemployment was relatively low. He has taken it down to record lows. Tough to create jobs when you’ve already created record low unemployment. Can’t go much lower.
Click to expand...

Unemployment followed the uppity nixxer mr Franklin


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why Obama created more jobs than the con?
> 
> 
> 
> MaObama took unemployment from 7% (when he was sworn in) to over 10%. Jobs were created after Republicans took control coast-to-coast.
> 
> When *President Trump* took office, unemployment was relatively low. He has taken it down to record lows. Tough to create jobs when you’ve already created record low unemployment. Can’t go much lower.
Click to expand...

Try this graph Ben.
I get it now 
Civilian unemployment rate
Can you post your graphs once in a while?
Knees news info is suspect


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Was 2018 a shellacking ?


You don’t know? Did you miss the results of the 2018 election?


----------



## jc456

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 2018 a shellacking ?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t know? Did you miss the results of the 2018 election?
Click to expand...

It is funny how the leftists don’t know history. 2010 was horrible for the demofks and obammy still won big in 2012. Ask them how that could be?


----------



## danielpalos

jc456 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was 2018 a shellacking ?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t know? Did you miss the results of the 2018 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is funny how the leftists don’t know history. 2010 was horrible for the demofks and obammy still won big in 2012. Ask them how that could be?
Click to expand...

Command economics that resulted in massive public sector spending to bail out the private sector.


----------



## Third Party

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


Omar


----------



## P@triot

The blueprint for a prosperous republic...


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Wherever conservatives govern, prosperity follows. Wherever progressives govern, poverty follows.

Lawmakers Map Out Conservative Solutions to End Poverty


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Wherever conservatives govern, prosperity follows. Wherever progressives govern, poverty follows.
> 
> Lawmakers Map Out Conservative Solutions to End Poverty



Does that include the state of Kansas? And governor brownback who put those governing ideals to practice...


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> Jobs would be bountiful. With low taxes, people would have a lot of money in their pockets for their future and to spend on goods and services in the economy. With private foundations handling the social needs, governments could eliminate their crushing debts (despite the lower taxes). Most of all, it retains liberty for the American people. The blueprint is there. Ask yourself why anyone would oppose proven policies?



What has stopped the nation's private educator from implementing such programs?  They don't make enough money for the shareholders, that's what.  

The private school industry has been ripping off low income Americans for generations.  (See Trump University fraud trials which the President settled for $25 million.)  When such schools became eligible for government guarateeed tuition loans, the flood gates opened.  One of Trump's "accomplishments" was to gut the accountability regulations put in place during the Obama administration governing these for-profit trade schools to protect students from scams and grifters, so it's open season for those trying to acquire skills.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Wherever conservatives govern, prosperity follows. Wherever progressives govern, poverty follows.
> 
> Lawmakers Map Out Conservative Solutions to End Poverty


Daily signal???!!!
Ben you have to stop reading commie swill
Try economists
Economists Agree: Democratic Presidents are Better at Making Us Rich. Eight Reasons Why. - Evonomics
"Why has USA performed better under democratic than republican presidents???
Repub congresses?
I guess you know why codpiece George kept Iraq costs off the budget?
Biggest financial disaster in our history.
The Middle East will never be the same


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> 
> 
> What has stopped the nation's private educator from implementing such programs?  They don't make enough money for the shareholders, that's what.
Click to expand...

The Dumbocrats. They are obsessed with power and control. And free markets strip them of both.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> "Why has USA performed better under democratic than republican presidents???


It hasn't, you nitwit. The Reagan economy was a gazillion times better than the failed Carter economy. And the Trump economy has been a gazillion times better than the failed Obama economy (which reached 10% unemployment until the American people turned the entire damn nation over to the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm "shellacking").


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I guess you know why codpiece George kept Iraq costs off the budget?


Bwahahahaha! Nobody swallows ignorant propaganda like your dumb ass.

Tell us something, snowflake. How the _fuck_ could President Bush keep Irag "off of the budget" when the *entire* *world* knew about the Iraq war. God you a such a moron. And an embarrassment to your family and your country.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> 
> 
> What has stopped the nation's private educator from implementing such programs?  They don't make enough money for the shareholders, that's what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dumbocrats. They are obsessed with power and control. And free markets strip them of both.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why has USA performed better under democratic than republican presidents???
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't, you nitwit. The Reagan economy was a gazillion times better than the failed Carter economy. And the Trump economy has been a gazillion times better than the failed Obama economy (which reached 10% unemployment until the American people turned the entire damn nation over to the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm "shellacking").
Click to expand...


You don't understand terms or economics do you. Can you explain this graph...


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you know why codpiece George kept Iraq costs off the budget?
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaha! Nobody swallows ignorant propaganda like your dumb ass.
> 
> Tell us something, snowflake. How the _fuck_ could President Bush keep Irag "off of the budget" when the *entire* *world* knew about the Iraq war. God you a such a moron. And an embarrassment to your family and your country.
Click to expand...


Emergency spending.


----------



## Dragonlady

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> 
> 
> What has stopped the nation's private educator from implementing such programs?  They don't make enough money for the shareholders, that's what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dumbocrats. They are obsessed with power and control. And free markets strip them of both.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Unregulated free markets mean it's open season for every conman and grifter out there.  The unregulated free market gifted you with the Great Depression.  Democrats regulated the free market in an effort to ensure that a Great Depression could never be repeated, and the abuses of the Robber Barons, and unregulated capital markets were kept in check.

It's no accident that when Roosevelt's protections against the excesses of unregulated capitalism were repealed in 1999, by 2008, American markets were once again in a fiscal crisis which was averted in countries with well-regulated banking and financial markets.  

Well regulated capitalism made America the wealthiest nation on earth with the largest middle class.  Once Reagan, Bush I, II, and Trump dismantled that regulation, the USA is becoming unliveable for the working class.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you know why codpiece George kept Iraq costs off the budget?
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaha! Nobody swallows ignorant propaganda like your dumb ass.
> 
> Tell us something, snowflake. How the _fuck_ could President Bush keep Irag "off of the budget" when the *entire* *world* knew about the Iraq war. God you a such a moron. And an embarrassment to your family and your country.
Click to expand...

Did you read the clip?
Of course not.
Apologies, It wasn't by the blaze, gateway pundit, daily caller, daily signal.
Is it possible for you to reply minus the foul mouth?
And of course an old white fart knows the intricacies of the budget
How the US public was defrauded by the hidden cost of the Iraq war | Michael Boyle
I guess you remember cheneys saying it would pay for itself?
I. Guess you still too dumb to know the real meaning of snowflake?
Original proslavery white boys?
Happy Xmas to you too darlin.
Enjoy your commie benefits


----------



## jc456

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Wherever conservatives govern, prosperity follows. Wherever progressives govern, poverty follows.
> 
> Lawmakers Map Out Conservative Solutions to End Poverty


Leftists can’t have a country with no poverty


----------



## jc456

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> 
> 
> What has stopped the nation's private educator from implementing such programs?  They don't make enough money for the shareholders, that's what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dumbocrats. They are obsessed with power and control. And free markets strip them of both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

Loss of control


----------



## Dragonlady

jc456 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine what we could do as a nation if we implemented all of these tried and proven free-market principles and then channeled the extreme passion of liberals into private foundations for social needs.
> 
> 
> 
> What has stopped the nation's private educator from implementing such programs?  They don't make enough money for the shareholders, that's what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dumbocrats. They are obsessed with power and control. And free markets strip them of both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loss of control
Click to expand...


You keep repeating "loss of control", over and over as if these words meant anything.  

Name specific things that Democrats did which prevented private schools from doing a program similar to the University of the Ozarks, and please bear in mind this school opened in 1907 and has survived 2 World Wars, and the Great Depression - through both the Guilded Age and the New Deal, and administrations of both parties.

Tell me again why private institutions across the country aren't being built on this model?


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> How so?


That question is so ignorant, you have to be trolling. How about their $15 an hour minimum wage (mandating unsustainable payrolls for private businesses)? Or how about their outrageous “regulations” (which now number in the hundreds of thousands)? How about labor laws?


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Unregulated free markets mean it's open season for every conman and grifter out there.


If you’re dumb enough to fall for scams by a “conman” or “grifter”, then that is on _you_.

Besides, we have stifling oppressive laws and Bernie Madoff still fleeced people out of hundreds of millions. Proving your argument is pure nonsense.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> It's no accident that when Roosevelt's protections against the excesses of unregulated capitalism were repealed in 1999, by 2008


It’s no accident that *housing* *market* collapsed after Bill Clinton’s 1997 Community Re-Investment Act forced banks to give loans they had previously denied.


Dragonlady said:


> American markets were once again in a fiscal crisis which was averted in countries with well-regulated banking and financial markets.


Bwahahaha! Such as....? England suffered. France suffered. Japan suffered. Greece _completely_ collapsed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why has USA performed better under democratic than republican presidents???
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't, you nitwit. The Reagan economy was a gazillion times better than the failed Carter economy. And the Trump economy has been a gazillion times better than the failed Obama economy (which reached 10% unemployment until the American people turned the entire damn nation over to the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm "shellacking").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand terms or economics do you. Can you explain this graph...
Click to expand...



Ohhh, did you Communists fabricate a GRAPH? 

Lies are SO MUCH MORE CONVINCING when you put them in a graph....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragonlady said:


> Wrong.  Unregulated free markets mean it's open season for every conman and grifter out there.  The unregulated free market gifted you with the Great Depression.  Democrats regulated the free market in an effort to ensure that a Great Depression could never be repeated, and the abuses of the Robber Barons, and unregulated capital markets were kept in check.
> 
> It's no accident that when Roosevelt's protections against the excesses of unregulated capitalism were repealed in 1999, by 2008, American markets were once again in a fiscal crisis which was averted in countries with well-regulated banking and financial markets.
> 
> Well regulated capitalism made America the wealthiest nation on earth with the largest middle class.  Once Reagan, Bush I, II, and Trump dismantled that regulation, the USA is becoming unliveable for the working class.



A, bullshit, and B, what do you mean "unregulated?" When in the HISTORY of this nation have there been no laws regarding fraud?

That's what you Communists do, you build straw man arguments based on lies and then pat yourselves on the back. "Robber Barons" and the great depression? What the fuck are you yammering about? 

You have no fucking clue what you are saying and are just posting Communist propaganda without a hint of what it means - which is nothing because it is a garble of nonsense.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no accident that when Roosevelt's protections against the excesses of unregulated capitalism were repealed in 1999, by 2008
> 
> 
> 
> It’s no accident that *housing* *market* collapsed after Bill Clinton’s 1997 Community Re-Investment Act forced banks to give loans they had previously denied.
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> American markets were once again in a fiscal crisis which was averted in countries with well-regulated banking and financial markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! Such as....? England suffered. France suffered. Japan suffered. Greece _completely_ collapsed.
Click to expand...

Good to know we didn't have a financial crisis.
Losing 750000 jobs a month when O arrived?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no accident that when Roosevelt's protections against the excesses of unregulated capitalism were repealed in 1999, by 2008
> 
> 
> 
> It’s no accident that *housing* *market* collapsed after Bill Clinton’s 1997 Community Re-Investment Act forced banks to give loans they had previously denied.
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> American markets were once again in a fiscal crisis which was averted in countries with well-regulated banking and financial markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahaha! Such as....? England suffered. France suffered. Japan suffered. Greece _completely_ collapsed.
Click to expand...


Mmm repub congress and senate in 1997.?
Ol bill must have been persuasive


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> That question is so ignorant, you have to be trolling. How about their $15 an hour minimum wage (mandating unsustainable payrolls for private businesses)? Or how about their outrageous “regulations” (which now number in the hundreds of thousands)? How about labor laws?
Click to expand...


You don't understand very much, do you.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Losing 750000 jobs a month when O arrived?


Yeah...and _why_? Because government unconstitutionally got involved in the free market and forced them to make loans the free market never would have made.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Losing 750000 jobs a month when O arrived?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...and _why_? Because government unconstitutionally got involved in the free market and forced them to make loans the free market never would have made.
Click to expand...


Ah the free market. No roads etc I guess we'll never know?
Complain to codpiece George then.
Here's an interesting graph.
That darn commie data
US GNP Data History Graph


----------



## ph3iron

Uncensored2008 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why has USA performed better under democratic than republican presidents???
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't, you nitwit. The Reagan economy was a gazillion times better than the failed Carter economy. And the Trump economy has been a gazillion times better than the failed Obama economy (which reached 10% unemployment until the American people turned the entire damn nation over to the Tea Party in the 2010 midterm "shellacking").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand terms or economics do you. Can you explain this graph...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh, did you Communists fabricate a GRAPH?
> 
> Lies are SO MUCH MORE CONVINCING when you put them in a graph....
Click to expand...

Yup, zero college  rubes can't understand them.


----------



## P@triot

We've reached an era much like the "Reagan Revolution" of the 1980's. People saw the horrors of the left-wing ideology and are converting to conservatism in mass across the globe.

Conservative Blowout in Britain Puts Brexit Back on Track


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Yup, zero college  rubes can't understand them.


It's comical listening to a buffoon with *zero* college (_you_) constantly use lack of college as an insult. You have the education of a high school dropout. You misspell basic words. Your grammar is atrocious. And you can't even form complete thoughts.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, zero college  rubes can't understand them.
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical listening to a buffoon with *zero* college (_you_) constantly use lack of college as an insult. You have the education of a high school dropout. You misspell basic words. Your grammar is atrocious. And you can't even form complete thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for examples and your college. Trump u?
I thought you were away blasting and preventing the latest gun deaths.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I'm still waiting for examples and your college. Trump u?


Unlike you, I went to college. Not sure what "examples" you need other than the fact that I create intelligent posts with complete sentences and proper grammar (unlike you).


ph3iron said:


> I *thought* you were away blasting and preventing the latest gun deaths.


Well thinking _clearly_ isn't your strong point, so....


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We've reached an era much like the "Reagan Revolution" of the 1980's. People saw the horrors of the left-wing ideology and are converting to conservatism in mass across the globe.
> 
> Conservative Blowout in Britain Puts Brexit Back on Track


Omg, daily signal. You really have to stop with these commie rags.
You will be believing in trickle down soon.
Hey I'm all for it, I'm a millionaire like you
Back on track? They have been suffering for 8 years under the cons.
Why do you think they voted to leave?
And our Boris "the last guy you would want to be left with in a pub at closing time"
Try fintan otoole.
The best explanation of brexit and uk and USA white nationalism I've read


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for examples and your college. Trump u?
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I went to college. Not sure what "examples" you need other than the fact that I create intelligent posts with complete sentences and proper grammar (unlike you).
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *thought* you were away blasting and preventing the latest gun deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thinking _clearly_ isn't your strong point, so....
Click to expand...

Had a Nobel prize winner as your external examiner?
If you know what an ee is?


P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for examples and your college. Trump u?
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I went to college. Not sure what "examples" you need other than the fact that I create intelligent posts with complete sentences and proper grammar (unlike you).
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *thought* you were away blasting and preventing the latest gun deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thinking _clearly_ isn't your strong point, so....
Click to expand...

i get it. I didn't put " thought" in red


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for examples and your college. Trump u?
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I went to college. Not sure what "examples" you need other than the fact that I create intelligent posts with complete sentences and proper grammar (unlike you).
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *thought* you were away blasting and preventing the latest gun deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thinking _clearly_ isn't your strong point, so....
Click to expand...

Examples of my superior grammar and sentences will do.
Love how you have to emphasis. CAPS next!!


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> We've reached an era much like the "Reagan Revolution" of the 1980's. People saw the horrors of the left-wing ideology and are converting to conservatism in mass across the globe.
> 
> Conservative Blowout in Britain Puts Brexit Back on Track


 I guess we post what supports our made up small minds
"Critics believe that the trickle-down policy has done damage6 to the U.S. economy more times than it has helped. It has met with disastrous results when applied at the federal and state level
Kansas is a case in point. Business taxes were cut by almost a third, which left the state’s income in the red. The benefits have gone to a handful of the wealthy, who did not invest much to spur the state’s economic growth. Because the state’s revenues are markedly decreased, Kansas’ education budget has been significantly curtailed as well." 
That's right, I believe in the good old American way. I have mine, screw you.
Don't you?!


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Omg, daily signal. You really have to stop with these commie rags.
> You will be believing in trickle down soon.
> Hey I'm all for it, I'm a millionaire like you
> Back on track? They have been suffering for 8 years under the cons.
> Why do you think they voted to leave?
> And our Boris "the last guy you would want to be left with in a pub at closing time"
> Try fintan otoole.
> The best explanation of brexit and uk and USA white nationalism I've read


See the incomplete sentences in the post above? See the incomplete thoughts? That is what happens when one drops out of high school instead of going to college. Don't be like Ph3iron, kids. Stay in school. Get your education.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> That's right, I believe in the good old American way. I have mine, screw you. Don't you?!


It's a damn shame you don't believe in liberty and independence. The two concepts the United States were built on.

Sadly, what you actually believe in is the good old Cuban communist way of "fuck society - I'm entitled to half of what everyone else worked really hard for".

The "good old American way of I have mine, screw you" has done more to raise the standard of living and eliminate poverty than all other systems and all people *combined*.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Why do you think they voted to leave?


Because they experienced the idiotic left-wing one-world-order first hand and have found it to be the catastrophic failure that informed, intelligent people already knew it would be.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, I believe in the good old American way. I have mine, screw you. Don't you?!
> 
> 
> 
> It's a damn shame you don't believe in liberty and independence. The two concepts the United States were built on.
> 
> Sadly, what you actually believe in is the good old Cuban communist way of "fuck society - I'm entitled to half of what everyone else worked really hard for".
> 
> The "good old American way of I have mine, screw you" has done more to raise the standard of living and eliminate poverty than all other systems and all people *combined*.
Click to expand...

How man you times do I have to tell


----------



## ph3iron

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, I believe in the good old American way. I have mine, screw you. Don't you?!
> 
> 
> 
> It's a damn shame you don't believe in liberty and independence. The two concepts the United States were built on.
> 
> Sadly, what you actually believe in is the good old Cuban communist way of "fuck society - I'm entitled to half of what everyone else worked really hard for".
> 
> The "good old American way of I have mine, screw you" has done more to raise the standard of living and eliminate poverty than all other systems and all people *combined*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many you times do I have to tell
Click to expand...


Apologies, how many times do I have to tell you I never voted for a dem in my life?
I don't know a rich friend who did.
We know which side our bread is buttered as they say
And look at you!! Wow on at 3 pm, on at 9 pm.
You really have to get a life beyond searching the Blaze and daily caller/signal


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg, daily signal. You really have to stop with these commie rags.
> You will be believing in trickle down soon.
> Hey I'm all for it, I'm a millionaire like you
> Back on track? They have been suffering for 8 years under the cons.
> Why do you think they voted to leave?
> And our Boris "the last guy you would want to be left with in a pub at closing time"
> Try fintan otoole.
> The best explanation of brexit and uk and USA white nationalism I've read
> 
> 
> 
> See the incomplete sentences in the post above? See the incomplete thoughts? That is what happens when one drops out of high school instead of going to college. Don't be like Ph3iron, kids. Stay in school. Get your education.
Click to expand...


Any actual facts??
Just dumb insults from a patriot who doesn't know what an external examiner is.
Or what the Nobel prize is
Please quote an example.
Not from the blaze if possible
Apologies, I try to use short statements so you can understand 
Read Fintan yet?brexit and USA old white farts is all about envy. A dreaming  to return to good old days plus a feeling of superiority.
I presume you are still sucking off your commie SS?


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> And look at you!! Wow on at 3 pm, on at 9 pm.


That’s right - I *never* tire of relentlessly fighting to protect the U.S. Constitution and exposing the propaganda of you anti-American leftists. And I never will.


----------



## P@triot

It’s like the “Reagan Revolution” all over again. After a decade of *failed* left-wing ideology, people are fleeing to proven conservative policies.

Is It 1979 Again?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> And look at you!! Wow on at 3 pm, on at 9 pm.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s right - I *never* tire of relentlessly fighting to protect the U.S. Constitution and exposing the propaganda of you anti-American leftists. And I never will.
Click to expand...


Got to support our Ben and other slave rapists and constitution?
Guess you are for our vagina grabber and teen peeper?
Love them.
I guess you saw the data where the economy is better under dem Pres?
I guess that will consume another day of your valuable time searching when the rep congress was in power?
Trust you are enjoying your dem pension, vacation pay?
But PLEASE Get a life beyond the blaze and daily caller


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> It’s like the “Reagan Revolution” all over again. After a decade of *failed* left-wing ideology, people are fleeing to proven conservative policies.
> 
> Is It 1979 Again?


Hope this helps
Economists Agree: Democratic Presidents are Better at Making Us Rich. Eight Reasons Why. - Evonomics.
Time to search The Blaze??


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> But PLEASE Get a life beyond the blaze and daily caller


The left keeps begging everyone to get away from The Blaze because they fear facts and real journalism.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> But PLEASE Get a life beyond the blaze and daily caller
> 
> 
> 
> The left keeps begging everyone to get away from The Blaze because they fear facts and real journalism.
Click to expand...

Just laughing.
Got an actual fact or is it one of your actual text examples?
Irish Times ? Omg more commie lit!!!


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> But PLEASE Get a life beyond the blaze and daily caller
> 
> 
> 
> The left keeps begging everyone to get away from The Blaze because they fear facts and real journalism.
Click to expand...

I guess they didn't publish the above article from economists?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> But PLEASE Get a life beyond the blaze and daily caller
> 
> 
> 
> The left keeps begging everyone to get away from The Blaze because they fear facts and real journalism.
Click to expand...


One off immigrant crimes?
None by native rubes?
Love those commie Glenn beck genes


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> One off immigrant crimes?


First of, they aren’t “immigrants”, you disingenuous partisan hack. They are *illegal* *aliens*.

Secondly, “one off” crimes done by ten thousand different *illegal* *aliens* equals tens of thousands of crimes.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One off immigrant crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> First of, they aren’t “immigrants”, you disingenuous partisan hack. They are *illegal* *aliens*.
> 
> Secondly, “one off” crimes done by ten thousand different *illegal* *aliens* equals tens of thousands of crimes.
Click to expand...


Nice essential zero college foul mouth.
Still supporting Ben who wanted to ban German immigrants?
Maybe he was too busy fathering illegitimate kids?
Too stupid to reply to your Aryan claim.
It's well known our native rubes commit more crimes than your feared aliens


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One off immigrant crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> First of, they aren’t “immigrants”, you disingenuous partisan hack. They are *illegal* *aliens*.
> 
> Secondly, “one off” crimes done by ten thousand different *illegal* *aliens* equals tens of thousands of crimes.
Click to expand...

A hoot, regurgitating a 16000 lie trump claim I see
Is Illegal Immigration Linked to More or Less Crime?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One off immigrant crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> First of, they aren’t “immigrants”, you disingenuous partisan hack. They are *illegal* *aliens*.
> 
> Secondly, “one off” crimes done by ten thousand different *illegal* *aliens* equals tens of thousands of crimes.
Click to expand...


I missed where you left everything you knew to walk 2000 miles to go to an unknown country.
It's well known that your dreaded immigrants work way harder than the average rube like you and me.
And they are the most ambitious section of their country
How immigrants are enriching our economy and society | UnidosUS
Yup I'm terrible , corporate republican hack.
Never voted for a dem in my life
Made my millions off of ignorant rubes


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One off immigrant crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> First of, they aren’t “immigrants”, you disingenuous partisan hack. They are *illegal* *aliens*.
> 
> Secondly, “one off” crimes done by ten thousand different *illegal* *aliens* equals tens of thousands of crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice essential zero college foul mouth.
Click to expand...

There isn’t a _single_ “foul” word there, high school dropout.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Still supporting Ben who wanted to ban German immigrants?


Absolutely! I’ll support Benjamin Franklin ‘til the day I die. He was one of the greatest Americans (and humans) of all time.

Considering Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, I would say Benjamin Franklin looks like a genius for not wanting Germans and you look like the fool (as usual),


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> I missed where you left everything you knew to walk 2000 miles to go to an unknown country.


You didn’t “miss” anything. I didn’t walk to an unknown country because I’m not a criminal _asshole_.

Only criminal assholes walk 2,000 miles to sneak into another country in the middle of the night. Good people apply for citizenship and then take a flight to their new nation - *legally*.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> It's well known that your dreaded *immigrants* work way harder than the average rube like you and me.


Again, they aren’t “immigrants” you propaganda-pushing partisan hack. The article was discussing *illegal* *aliens*.


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed where you left everything you knew to walk 2000 miles to go to an unknown country.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t “miss” anything. I didn’t walk to an unknown country because I’m not a criminal _asshole_.
> 
> Only criminal assholes walk 2,000 miles to sneak into another country in the middle of the night. Good people apply for citizenship and then take a flight to their new nation - *legally*.
Click to expand...

And no ambition it appears
I doubt if you could walk 200 yards mr zero college foul mouth.
Can't you comment w/o a stupid insult?
Psst most illegals fly in and overstay.
Unbelievable ignorance


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still supporting Ben who wanted to ban German immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! I’ll support Benjamin Franklin ‘til the day I die. He was one of the greatest Americans (and humans) of all time.
> 
> Considering Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, I would say Benjamin Franklin looks like a genius for not wanting Germans and you look like the fool (as usual),
Click to expand...

I thought you were anti illegals.
No prob with bens illigitamate kids?
Jealous?
Too old to get it up?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still supporting Ben who wanted to ban German immigrants?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! I’ll support Benjamin Franklin ‘til the day I die. He was one of the greatest Americans (and humans) of all time.
> 
> Considering Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, I would say Benjamin Franklin looks like a genius for not wanting Germans and you look like the fool (as usual),
Click to expand...

So what have German immigrants done to you mr supercilious?
Isn't trump from Germany?


----------



## GreenAndBlue

The Bible is the blue print 

Shows clearly that the unwise must obey the wise


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> One off immigrant crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> First of, they aren’t “immigrants”, you disingenuous partisan hack. They are *illegal* *aliens*.
> 
> Secondly, “one off” crimes done by ten thousand different *illegal* *aliens* equals tens of thousands of crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice essential zero college foul mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There isn’t a _single_ “foul” word there, high school dropout.
Click to expand...

How about white boy insults from a blaze man who never did anything for anyone in his benefits life?


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that your dreaded *immigrants* work way harder than the average rube like you and me.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they aren’t “immigrants” you propaganda-pushing partisan hack. The article was discussing *illegal* *aliens*.
Click to expand...


Don't you realize immigrants, illegal or not is what the country needs?
Aggressive, business owners, reduce the average age.
Lord we have enough old farts like me and you who contribute nothing and suck off the countries socialist benefits
Amusing really, coming from so supercilious lads who stole the country in the first place.
We, the original illegals!!!
You can't see that?
Be grateful every time you have beer, Chinese or mex food


----------



## ph3iron

P@triot said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed where you left everything you knew to walk 2000 miles to go to an unknown country.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn’t “miss” anything. I didn’t walk to an unknown country because I’m not a criminal _asshole_.
> 
> Only criminal assholes walk 2,000 miles to sneak into another country in the middle of the night. Good people apply for citizenship and then take a flight to their new nation - *legally*.
Click to expand...


You are SO high and mighty judgemental
Must be nice


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Psst most illegals fly in and overstay.
> Unbelievable ignorance


Psst...I receive actual classified briefings from the Border Patrol. Do _you_?

You are correct - you do exhibit unbelievable ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> You are SO high and mighty judgemental Must be nice


I’m not going to lie. It _is_. It’s really nice.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Don't you realize immigrants, *illegal* or not is what the country needs?


Don’t you realize that no country needs criminal activity? 

Nothing good comes from illegal activity. Nothing.


----------



## P@triot

ph3iron said:


> Amusing really, coming from so supercilious lads who stole the country in the first place. We, the original illegals!!!
> You can't see that?


Psst...stupid...Native Americans did not establish a nation. They did not form a single, solitary government (they were hundreds and hundreds of separate “tribes”), and they did not establish borders.

So no, I can’t see that. I can’t see what doesn’t exist. And you wouldn’t be able to see it either if you were educated.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.

Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy


Socialism which is known everywhere but GOP and UK Tory as faire capitalism always Democratic with a good safety net, is what they have and every other modern country. If we had healthcare for everyone we would be too.-barely.... English speaking countries have that problem from years of garbage propaganda. France Italy Germany etc etc had socialist and communist parties for years. Socialist is democratic, communist is not- communist has disappeared. Wake up and smell the coffee, brainwash functional moron.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> *Socialism which is known everywhere* but GOP and UK Tory *as faire capitalism*...


It’s hard for the educated to wrap their mind around the profound ignorance of Franco. He literally doesn’t know which way is up. Completely misinformed on _every_ issue. Here is an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):


> I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a *member of DSA*, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to *end capitalism*


I’d like to think that Franco is just spreading propaganda for his dreams of being a well-off parasite, but I am 100% convinced at this point that he really is this ignorant.

Democratic socialism, explained by a democratic socialist


----------



## P@triot

There is nothing complicated about it. Pro-growth polices of low taxes and low regulations result in a thriving economy and prosperity for all.

2 Cabinet Secretaries Tout Jobs, Wage Hikes Spurred by Deregulation


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity...

Conservatives Skewer the Socialist Policies of Today's Liberals


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.

White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialism which is known everywhere* but GOP and UK Tory *as faire capitalism*...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s hard for the educated to wrap their mind around the profound ignorance of Franco. He literally doesn’t know which way is up. Completely misinformed on _every_ issue. Here is an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):
> 
> 
> 
> I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a *member of DSA*, and here’s the truth: In the long run, democratic socialists want to *end capitalism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’d like to think that Franco is just spreading propaganda for his dreams of being a well-off parasite, but I am 100% convinced at this point that he really is this ignorant.
> 
> Democratic socialism, explained by a democratic socialist
Click to expand...

I'm a French socialist since 1971 screw all your crap. I don't care about your garbage propaganda.


P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal


So why does the GOP have a corrupt deregulation cronyism bubble and bust every time they get eight years in power? Where do you think the fraud bubble is this time?


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal


Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> I'm a French socialist since 1971


And it shows in your _profound_ *ignorance*.


francoHFW said:


> screw all your crap. I don't care about your garbage propaganda.


Note that the quote is from an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America and posted on the extreme left-wing site Vox. But since it proves Franco was wrong (not to mention profoundly ignorant), his response is "screw your crap, I don't care about propaganda". Ironic since I literally proved he's the only one here pushing propaganda. Everything I've posted is deeply seated in 100% fact.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history?


Because we have more left-wing policy right now than at any time in our _history_. So thank you for proving yet again that left-wing policy ends in poverty and misery every time.

In the 1800's we didn't have Social Security or "welfare". In the 1950's, we didn't have Medicare or Medicaid. In the 1990's, we didn't have Obamacare. And during all of that, we didn't have any of the stifling, misery-induced, unconstitutional "regulations" imposed by the left (such as gas mileage requirements, oil drilling moratoriums, etc.).

Every time you post, you prove to the world why conservatism is superior in every aspect. I thank you for that.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialism which is known everywhere* but GOP and UK Tory *as faire capitalism*...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s hard for the educated to wrap their mind around the profound ignorance of Franco. He literally doesn’t know which way is up. Completely misinformed on _every_ issue. Here is an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):
> 
> 
> 
> I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a *member of DSA*, *and here’s the truth*: In the long run, democratic socialists want to *end capitalism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’d like to think that Franco is just spreading propaganda for his dreams of being a well-off parasite, but I am 100% convinced at this point that he really is this ignorant.
> 
> Democratic socialism, explained by a democratic socialist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a French socialist since 1971 screw all your crap. I don't care about your garbage propaganda.
Click to expand...

I can't get over Frenchie Franco's post here. Proven wrong by the actual Democratic Socialists of America party. Rather than admit his ignorance with a mea culpa, he lashes out like a small child with screw your crap/I don't care/propaganda/ blah blah blah rant.

Quintessential leftist!!


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a French socialist since 1971
> 
> 
> 
> And it shows in your _profound_ *ignorance*.
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> screw all your crap. I don't care about your garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note that the quote is from an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America and posted on the extreme left-wing site Vox. But since it proves Franco was wrong (not to mention profoundly ignorant), his response is "screw your crap, I don't care about propaganda". Ironic since I literally proved he's the only one here pushing propaganda. Everything I've posted is deeply seated in 100% fact.
Click to expand...

the Democratic socialists of America have nothing to do with Sanders or anyone else and are way too far left even for me. So total b******* propaganda as always, brainwashed and misinformed functional moron.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialism which is known everywhere* but GOP and UK Tory *as faire capitalism*...
> 
> 
> 
> It’s hard for the educated to wrap their mind around the profound ignorance of Franco. He literally doesn’t know which way is up. Completely misinformed on _every_ issue. Here is an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):
> 
> 
> 
> I’m a staff writer at the socialist magazine Jacobin and a *member of DSA*, *and here’s the truth*: In the long run, democratic socialists want to *end capitalism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’d like to think that Franco is just spreading propaganda for his dreams of being a well-off parasite, but I am 100% convinced at this point that he really is this ignorant.
> 
> Democratic socialism, explained by a democratic socialist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a French socialist since 1971 screw all your crap. I don't care about your garbage propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get over Frenchie Franco's post here. Proven wrong by the actual Democratic Socialists of America party. Rather than admit his ignorance with a mea culpa, he lashes out like a small child with screw your crap/I don't care/propaganda/ blah blah blah rant.
> 
> Quintessential leftist!!
Click to expand...

the Democratic socialists of America have nothing to do with Sanders or the Democratic party or the people who are supporting Sanders or anything else. They are a fringe far left garbage party, brainwash functional moron


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> There is nothing complicated about it. Pro-growth polices of low taxes and low regulations result in a thriving economy and prosperity for all.
> 
> 2 Cabinet Secretaries Tout Jobs, Wage Hikes Spurred by Deregulation


Bulshit. And anyway the GOP has just given low taxes to the rich and high taxes for you and everyone you know with cuts and services to boot, brainwashed functional moron. We've had it your way or the GOP way for 35 years and now we have the worst inequality upward mobility ever anywhere in the last hundred years in the modern world. Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history?
> 
> 
> 
> Because we have more left-wing policy right now than at any time in our _history_. So thank you for proving yet again that left-wing policy ends in poverty and misery every time.
> 
> In the 1800's we didn't have Social Security or "welfare". In the 1950's, we didn't have Medicare or Medicaid. In the 1990's, we didn't have Obamacare. And during all of that, we didn't have any of the stifling, misery-induced, unconstitutional "regulations" imposed by the left (such as gas mileage requirements, oil drilling moratoriums, etc.).
> 
> Every time you post, you prove to the world why conservatism is superior in every aspect. I thank you for that.
Click to expand...

You really should read a book called the good old days oh, they were terrible!. thank God we have had socialist reform in the last hundred and twenty years. Your plan to bring back poor houses and Potter's fields for the elderly poverty-stricken is pure idiocy.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history?


Why? Because greedy, lazy, ignorant people like _you_ keep voting for greedy, lazy, ignorant politicians like _you_ to hand them “free” shit.


----------



## francoHFW

Yes yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the GOP cutting services for the non-rich for 35 years now along with infrastructure spending. No sacrifice is too great to save the rich from paying their fair share...


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
Click to expand...


Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
Click to expand...

The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon. The GOP has their reconciliation rule so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 Senate votes, and their filibuster so the Democrats need 60 votes to pass reform. The Democrats have had 35 days or so in session with 60 votes in the Senate in the last 40 years, in the middle of a GOP economic meltdown as usual-they passed Obamacare and the 60th vote was Lieberman a semi Republican. Can you follow that, brainwashed functional moron?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon. The GOP has their reconciliation rule so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 Senate votes, and their filibuster so the Democrats need 60 votes to pass reform. The Democrats have had 35 days or so in session with 60 votes in the Senate in the last 40 years, in the middle of a GOP economic meltdown as usual-they passed Obamacare and the 60th vote was Lieberman a semi Republican. Can you follow that, brainwashed functional moron?
Click to expand...

Sure, you're claiming that Republicans can rule with a simple majority while the feckless democrats, for whom you slavishly cast your vote believing that somehow they'll give you what you want this time for sure, won't do diddly squat unless they have a super-majority. Is that about the size of it? Republicans=strong, invincible political beings who do what they want while democrats=weak, scared of their own shadow mice running around in the shadows begging for a few crumbs of power. And you vote for which again?


----------



## beautress

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy


The biggest threat to the economy right now is the runaway spending war the Democrat Congress is waging against the taxpayer. Both parties are voting on far too much spending on pet rock stuff and not on security. There's no end in sight to the three trillion dollars the Congress has to borrow for Nancy Pelosi's fun stuff party she's buying votes with for Democrats. Why the Republicans are okaying it I have no idea. It's a disgrace to demand working class people with schooling to pay will have to consider monumental taxes in the future, with no end in sight to the local taxes leveled that people who own their American dream home are now going broke on paying local land and house taxes when on social security that just can't pay up enough to cover local taxes, and that is no lie. In addition to land taxes, the sales taxes are around nine bucks on every hundred dollars spent here. And you should see the salaries the officials are getting. That's more than most of us paid on buying a home with payments over a 30 year period. Also, "public servants" have passed laws for themselves to never to have to disclose to anybody how much they make, and we're talking six figures minimum. All this wrangling about collusion is a crappy way to keep the public's eye off how much money is being budgeted, then overspent nationally and locally. Socialism has already swallowed people's assets, because when they die, the greedy greedies can foreclose on properties with even small amounts of taxes owed, sell a million dollar property to a relative for ten thousand, and nobody's the wiser. They already figured out a way to get people's land mineral rights to their families and friends before the sucka buys the place sans any benefits from the minerals. The owner of the property should own the mineral rights. That way if the crops don't get enough rain or water, the landowner can drill for minerals, oil, water, or whatever he thought he owned when he bought his or her land. If he or she should find a treasure on the property in minerals they get a cute little thank you note from the piggy piggy who gets the cash for it, and sometimes, the piggy piggy doesn't want you to know who they are.

The Congress oughta pass a law giving all the land a person owns his rightful minerals. Somebody passed a law to split off the minerals from the owners, and that law needs to be rescinded and give power of owning the very dirt on its surface, and all that's beneath it back to the property owners. Even that is owned by the piggy piggies. Patoo!


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon. The GOP has their reconciliation rule so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 Senate votes, and their filibuster so the Democrats need 60 votes to pass reform. The Democrats have had 35 days or so in session with 60 votes in the Senate in the last 40 years, in the middle of a GOP economic meltdown as usual-they passed Obamacare and the 60th vote was Lieberman a semi Republican. Can you follow that, brainwashed functional moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you're claiming that Republicans can rule with a simple majority while the feckless democrats, for whom you slavishly cast your vote believing that somehow they'll give you what you want this time for sure, won't do diddly squat unless they have a super-majority. Is that about the size of it? Republicans=strong, invincible political beings who do what they want while democrats=weak, scared of their own shadow mice running around in the shadows begging for a few crumbs of power. And you vote for which again?
Click to expand...

I vote for civilization, not a scumbag giveaway to the rich propaganda machine GOP, super Dupe. But yes the Democrats are pussies in comparison to the mafia LOL. Look up reconciliation and filibuster, a real GOP scam the Democrats go along with. Bring on the nuclear option please.


----------



## francoHFW

beautress said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to the economy right now is the runaway spending war the Democrat Congress is waging against the taxpayer. Both parties are voting on far too much spending on pet rock stuff and not on security. There's no end in sight to the three trillion dollars the Congress has to borrow for Nancy Pelosi's fun stuff party she's buying votes with for Democrats. Why the Republicans are okaying it I have no idea. It's a disgrace to demand working class people with schooling to pay will have to consider monumental taxes in the future, with no end in sight to the local taxes leveled that people who own their American dream home are now going broke on paying local land and house taxes when on social security that just can't pay up enough to cover local taxes, and that is no lie. In addition to land taxes, the sales taxes are around nine bucks on every hundred dollars spent here. And you should see the salaries the officials are getting. That's more than most of us paid on buying a home with payments over a 30 year period. Also, "public servants" have passed laws for themselves to never to have to disclose to anybody how much they make, and we're talking six figures minimum. All this wrangling about collusion is a crappy way to keep the public's eye off how much money is being budgeted, then overspent nationally and locally. Socialism has already swallowed people's assets, because when they die, the greedy greedies can foreclose on properties with even small amounts of taxes owed, sell a million dollar property to a relative for ten thousand, and nobody's the wiser. They already figured out a way to get people's land mineral rights to their families and friends before the sucka buys the place sans any benefits from the minerals. The owner of the property should own the mineral rights. That way if the crops don't get enough rain or water, the landowner can drill for minerals, oil, water, or whatever he thought he owned when he bought his or her land. If he or she should find a treasure on the property in minerals they get a cute little thank you note from the piggy piggy who gets the cash for it, and sometimes, the piggy piggy doesn't want you to know who they are.
> 
> The Congress oughta pass a law giving all the land a person owns his rightful minerals. Somebody passed a law to split off the minerals from the owners, and that law needs to be rescinded and give power of owning the very dirt on its surface, and all that's beneath it back to the property owners. Even that is owned by the piggy piggies. Patoo!
Click to expand...

The scumbag give away to the rich GOP has been in charge for 35 years dumbass.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon. The GOP has their reconciliation rule so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 Senate votes, and their filibuster so the Democrats need 60 votes to pass reform. The Democrats have had 35 days or so in session with 60 votes in the Senate in the last 40 years, in the middle of a GOP economic meltdown as usual-they passed Obamacare and the 60th vote was Lieberman a semi Republican. Can you follow that, brainwashed functional moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you're claiming that Republicans can rule with a simple majority while the feckless democrats, for whom you slavishly cast your vote believing that somehow they'll give you what you want this time for sure, won't do diddly squat unless they have a super-majority. Is that about the size of it? Republicans=strong, invincible political beings who do what they want while democrats=weak, scared of their own shadow mice running around in the shadows begging for a few crumbs of power. And you vote for which again?
Click to expand...

 all the GOP cares about is cutting taxes on the rich raising them on the rest and doing away with services to help the non-rich. Only garbage propaganda makes this possible super duper.....


----------



## beautress

francoHFW said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to the economy right now is the runaway spending war the Democrat Congress is waging against the taxpayer. Both parties are voting on far too much spending on pet rock stuff and not on security. There's no end in sight to the three trillion dollars the Congress has to borrow for Nancy Pelosi's fun stuff party she's buying votes with for Democrats. Why the Republicans are okaying it I have no idea. It's a disgrace to demand working class people with schooling to pay will have to consider monumental taxes in the future, with no end in sight to the local taxes leveled that people who own their American dream home are now going broke on paying local land and house taxes when on social security that just can't pay up enough to cover local taxes, and that is no lie. In addition to land taxes, the sales taxes are around nine bucks on every hundred dollars spent here. And you should see the salaries the officials are getting. That's more than most of us paid on buying a home with payments over a 30 year period. Also, "public servants" have passed laws for themselves to never to have to disclose to anybody how much they make, and we're talking six figures minimum. All this wrangling about collusion is a crappy way to keep the public's eye off how much money is being budgeted, then overspent nationally and locally. Socialism has already swallowed people's assets, because when they die, the greedy greedies can foreclose on properties with even small amounts of taxes owed, sell a million dollar property to a relative for ten thousand, and nobody's the wiser. They already figured out a way to get people's land mineral rights to their families and friends before the sucka buys the place sans any benefits from the minerals. The owner of the property should own the mineral rights. That way if the crops don't get enough rain or water, the landowner can drill for minerals, oil, water, or whatever he thought he owned when he bought his or her land. If he or she should find a treasure on the property in minerals they get a cute little thank you note from the piggy piggy who gets the cash for it, and sometimes, the piggy piggy doesn't want you to know who they are.
> 
> The Congress oughta pass a law giving all the land a person owns his rightful minerals. Somebody passed a law to split off the minerals from the owners, and that law needs to be rescinded and give power of owning the very dirt on its surface, and all that's beneath it back to the property owners. Even that is owned by the piggy piggies. Patoo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scumbag give away to the rich GOP has been in charge for 35 years dumbass.
Click to expand...

You're supporting people who would kill to get power away from conservatives, as noticed by their three year impeachment probe and fake impeachment that followed. And you still support these communists. Duly noted.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
Click to expand...

Listen s*******, you can only pass reform with 60 votes in the Senate and the Democrats have only had that 4 35 days in session and they passed Obamacare by the skin of their teeth. Of course another problem is every time they get in they have to deal with a GOP economic meltdown at the same time. If I were as dumb as you I'd kill myself. Oops brainwashed functionally dumb.


----------



## francoHFW

beautress said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to the economy right now is the runaway spending war the Democrat Congress is waging against the taxpayer. Both parties are voting on far too much spending on pet rock stuff and not on security. There's no end in sight to the three trillion dollars the Congress has to borrow for Nancy Pelosi's fun stuff party she's buying votes with for Democrats. Why the Republicans are okaying it I have no idea. It's a disgrace to demand working class people with schooling to pay will have to consider monumental taxes in the future, with no end in sight to the local taxes leveled that people who own their American dream home are now going broke on paying local land and house taxes when on social security that just can't pay up enough to cover local taxes, and that is no lie. In addition to land taxes, the sales taxes are around nine bucks on every hundred dollars spent here. And you should see the salaries the officials are getting. That's more than most of us paid on buying a home with payments over a 30 year period. Also, "public servants" have passed laws for themselves to never to have to disclose to anybody how much they make, and we're talking six figures minimum. All this wrangling about collusion is a crappy way to keep the public's eye off how much money is being budgeted, then overspent nationally and locally. Socialism has already swallowed people's assets, because when they die, the greedy greedies can foreclose on properties with even small amounts of taxes owed, sell a million dollar property to a relative for ten thousand, and nobody's the wiser. They already figured out a way to get people's land mineral rights to their families and friends before the sucka buys the place sans any benefits from the minerals. The owner of the property should own the mineral rights. That way if the crops don't get enough rain or water, the landowner can drill for minerals, oil, water, or whatever he thought he owned when he bought his or her land. If he or she should find a treasure on the property in minerals they get a cute little thank you note from the piggy piggy who gets the cash for it, and sometimes, the piggy piggy doesn't want you to know who they are.
> 
> The Congress oughta pass a law giving all the land a person owns his rightful minerals. Somebody passed a law to split off the minerals from the owners, and that law needs to be rescinded and give power of owning the very dirt on its surface, and all that's beneath it back to the property owners. Even that is owned by the piggy piggies. Patoo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scumbag give away to the rich GOP has been in charge for 35 years dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're supporting people who would kill to get power away from conservatives, as noticed by their three year impeachment probe and fake impeachment that followed. And you still support these communists. Duly noted.
Click to expand...

 you live on an imaginary propaganda planet, brainwashed functional moron. The impeachment started with The whistleblower and took 6 months all together. Communistswant a dictatorship that owns all business and industry. You are absolutely out of your mind. Change the channel read something


----------



## beautress

francoHFW said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> Socialism, Not Coronavirus, Seen as Real Threat to Economy
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to the economy right now is the runaway spending war the Democrat Congress is waging against the taxpayer. Both parties are voting on far too much spending on pet rock stuff and not on security. There's no end in sight to the three trillion dollars the Congress has to borrow for Nancy Pelosi's fun stuff party she's buying votes with for Democrats. Why the Republicans are okaying it I have no idea. It's a disgrace to demand working class people with schooling to pay will have to consider monumental taxes in the future, with no end in sight to the local taxes leveled that people who own their American dream home are now going broke on paying local land and house taxes when on social security that just can't pay up enough to cover local taxes, and that is no lie. In addition to land taxes, the sales taxes are around nine bucks on every hundred dollars spent here. And you should see the salaries the officials are getting. That's more than most of us paid on buying a home with payments over a 30 year period. Also, "public servants" have passed laws for themselves to never to have to disclose to anybody how much they make, and we're talking six figures minimum. All this wrangling about collusion is a crappy way to keep the public's eye off how much money is being budgeted, then overspent nationally and locally. Socialism has already swallowed people's assets, because when they die, the greedy greedies can foreclose on properties with even small amounts of taxes owed, sell a million dollar property to a relative for ten thousand, and nobody's the wiser. They already figured out a way to get people's land mineral rights to their families and friends before the sucka buys the place sans any benefits from the minerals. The owner of the property should own the mineral rights. That way if the crops don't get enough rain or water, the landowner can drill for minerals, oil, water, or whatever he thought he owned when he bought his or her land. If he or she should find a treasure on the property in minerals they get a cute little thank you note from the piggy piggy who gets the cash for it, and sometimes, the piggy piggy doesn't want you to know who they are.
> 
> The Congress oughta pass a law giving all the land a person owns his rightful minerals. Somebody passed a law to split off the minerals from the owners, and that law needs to be rescinded and give power of owning the very dirt on its surface, and all that's beneath it back to the property owners. Even that is owned by the piggy piggies. Patoo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The scumbag give away to the rich GOP has been in charge for 35 years dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're supporting people who would kill to get power away from conservatives, as noticed by their three year impeachment probe and fake impeachment that followed. And you still support these communists. Duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you live on an imaginary propaganda planet, brainwashed functional moron. The impeachment started with The whistleblower and took 6 months all together. Communistswant a dictatorship that owns all business and industry. You are absolutely out of your mind. Change the channel read something
Click to expand...

I'm going to run your full post trashtalk through my spin machine for the enlightment of our dear USMBoard"

"You live on an imaginary propaganda planet, brainwashed functional moron." -total projection learned in Demmie brainwash factory that trickles down to operatives of such yap.
 Let's take Propaganda: threats that amount to bad things happening to those whose opinions vary from the self-appointed gods and goddesses of the Leftist Lockstep Propaganda Machine. And frankly, Franco, you're their believer.
"The impeachment started with The whistleblower and took 6 months all together."
Actually, Judicial Watch uncovered a memo from Barack Obama's desk of May, 2016, that hustled Democrats into planning an impeachment for Donald Trump if he won the election. (30 states to 20 states did the trick.) They very well knew early on that Donald Trump would win. They knew it. And they planned on doing the dirt they did for three years trying to do as Obama directed, in no uncertain beat of the drum. Never mind the rest of your filthy-mouthed post.

Guess what. That three years was the longest footshoot a Party ever engaged in. Are all of you in wheelchairs now, having shot yourselves in the foot so many times?


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon.


Oh shut the fuck up _already_. Listening to you post lie after lie after lie in a stupid ass attempt to rewrite history is mind-numbing.

The Dumbocrats invented obstruction. Tip O’Neill did everything in his power to disrupt the Reagan agenda.

The Dumbocrats have issued Articles of Impeachment resolution against every single Republican president since Eisenhower. *Every*. *Single*. *One*. Nixon. Ford. Reagan. Bush I. Bush II. Trump.

Just stop. Shut the fuck up. The entire board is tired of your shit. If you can’t discuss reality, don’t discuss at all. Nobody is interested in your extreme left-wing propaganda fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> Yes yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the GOP cutting services for the non-rich for 35 years now


Correct. It has *nothing* to do with that. First thing you said that was accurate.

65 years and over a trillion dollars on the Dumbocrat’s faux (and ignorant) “War on Poverty” and all we’ve seen is an increase in poverty. That’s what left-wing policy always does.


----------



## beautress

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon. The GOP has their reconciliation rule so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 Senate votes, and their filibuster so the Democrats need 60 votes to pass reform. The Democrats have had 35 days or so in session with 60 votes in the Senate in the last 40 years, in the middle of a GOP economic meltdown as usual-they passed Obamacare and the 60th vote was Lieberman a semi Republican. Can you follow that, brainwashed functional moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you're claiming that Republicans can rule with a simple majority while the feckless democrats, for whom you slavishly cast your vote believing that somehow they'll give you what you want this time for sure, won't do diddly squat unless they have a super-majority. Is that about the size of it? Republicans=strong, invincible political beings who do what they want while democrats=weak, scared of their own shadow mice running around in the shadows begging for a few crumbs of power. And you vote for which again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote for civilization, not a scumbag giveaway to the rich propaganda machine GOP, super Dupe. But yes the Democrats are pussies in comparison to the mafia LOL. Look up reconciliation and filibuster, a real GOP scam the Democrats go along with. Bring on the nuclear option please.
Click to expand...

If you like civilization, you will rue the day you became and remained a Democrat if they ever push the Communist agenda much further.,


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP has been pure obstruction since Reagan, who the Democrats gave the last honeymoon. The GOP has their reconciliation rule so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 Senate votes, and their filibuster so the Democrats need 60 votes to pass reform. The Democrats have had 35 days or so in session with 60 votes in the Senate in the last 40 years, in the middle of a GOP economic meltdown as usual-they passed Obamacare and the 60th vote was Lieberman a semi Republican. Can you follow that, brainwashed functional moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, you're claiming that Republicans can rule with a simple majority while the feckless democrats, for whom you slavishly cast your vote believing that somehow they'll give you what you want this time for sure, won't do diddly squat unless they have a super-majority. Is that about the size of it? Republicans=strong, invincible political beings who do what they want while democrats=weak, scared of their own shadow mice running around in the shadows begging for a few crumbs of power. And you vote for which again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the GOP cares about is cutting taxes on the rich raising them on the rest and doing away with services to help the non-rich. Only garbage propaganda makes this possible super duper.....
Click to expand...


You need to meet real people instead of believing that propaganda.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. History has proven time and time again that left-wing policy results in poverty and misery, while conservative policy results in prosperity for all.
> 
> White House Talks Up Economic, Environmental Renewal
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the White House is totally full of s*** just like your media. So the GOP has been in charge of tax rates and policy basically since 1981. Why do we now have the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history? If you people could only realize you are totally clueless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still pretending that democrats haven't had power for 40 years? They have you completely believing their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen s*******, you can only pass reform with 60 votes in the Senate and the Democrats have only had that 4 35 days in session and they passed Obamacare by the skin of their teeth. Of course another problem is every time they get in they have to deal with a GOP economic meltdown at the same time. If I were as dumb as you I'd kill myself. Oops brainwashed functionally dumb.
Click to expand...


Still pretending. Oh well, whatever helps you get through your day.


----------



## francoHFW

3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?



It is to laugh, the idea that you of all people would be worried about "usual Babble".


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is to laugh, the idea that you of all people would be worried about "usual Babble".
Click to expand...

Facts and reality are not babble. you've got nothing, stupid. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid.... So 1929 1989 and 2008 corrupt GOP economic meltdowns never happened right? So tell me when Democrats did not need 60 votes to pass anything the last 35 years.... Look up the GOP rule called reconciliation. All they care about is cutting taxes on the rich and screwing everyone else. That's how the United States the richest country in the world became a disgrace. Worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere ever and wrecked the world in 2008. You live on an imaginary planet dumbass.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is to laugh, the idea that you of all people would be worried about "usual Babble".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts and reality are not babble. you've got nothing, stupid. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid.... So 1929 1989 and 2008 corrupt GOP economic meltdowns never happened right? So tell me when Democrats did not need 60 votes to pass anything the last 35 years.... Look up the GOP rule called reconciliation. All they care about is cutting taxes on the rich and screwing everyone else. That's how the United States the richest country in the world became a disgrace. Worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere ever and wrecked the world in 2008. You live on an imaginary planet dumbass.
Click to expand...


Aww, you were fun until you got all butthurt and tried to insult me. You really, really believe that propaganda.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is to laugh, the idea that you of all people would be worried about "usual Babble".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts and reality are not babble. you've got nothing, stupid. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid.... So 1929 1989 and 2008 corrupt GOP economic meltdowns never happened right? So tell me when Democrats did not need 60 votes to pass anything the last 35 years.... Look up the GOP rule called reconciliation. All they care about is cutting taxes on the rich and screwing everyone else. That's how the United States the richest country in the world became a disgrace. Worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere ever and wrecked the world in 2008. You live on an imaginary planet dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww, you were fun until you got all butthurt and tried to insult me. You really, really believe that propaganda.
Click to expand...

sure, the IRS and all the experts and all the journalists in the world are wrong. Only your bought off ex Coke head high School grad DJ's know the truth.... you people are absolutely ridiculously ignorant.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is to laugh, the idea that you of all people would be worried about "usual Babble".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts and reality are not babble. you've got nothing, stupid. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid.... So 1929 1989 and 2008 corrupt GOP economic meltdowns never happened right? So tell me when Democrats did not need 60 votes to pass anything the last 35 years.... Look up the GOP rule called reconciliation. All they care about is cutting taxes on the rich and screwing everyone else. That's how the United States the richest country in the world became a disgrace. Worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere ever and wrecked the world in 2008. You live on an imaginary planet dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww, you were fun until you got all butthurt and tried to insult me. You really, really believe that propaganda.
Click to expand...

Brainwashed functional dumbass I meant...


----------



## P@triot

francoHFW said:


> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons....


According to Franco, the entire world is a (quite) “brainwashed functional moron” except for him. It’s his fall-back phrase when he’s been bitch-slapped around the room with logic, reason, data, and *facts*.


----------



## francoHFW

P@triot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons....
> 
> 
> 
> According to Franco, the entire world is a (quite) “brainwashed functional moron” except for him. It’s his fall-back phrase when he’s been bitch-slapped around the room with logic, reason, data, and *facts*.
Click to expand...

No just people who only listen to The GOP propaganda machine and believe all their incredible crap. you have no logic no reason no data and no facts just garbage propaganda. The whole world outside your bubble of Bologna agrees, ignoramus.....


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 babbling brainwashed functional morons.... LOL. Any actual argument or just the usual Babble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is to laugh, the idea that you of all people would be worried about "usual Babble".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Facts and reality are not babble. you've got nothing, stupid. Oops brainwashed functionally stupid.... So 1929 1989 and 2008 corrupt GOP economic meltdowns never happened right? So tell me when Democrats did not need 60 votes to pass anything the last 35 years.... Look up the GOP rule called reconciliation. All they care about is cutting taxes on the rich and screwing everyone else. That's how the United States the richest country in the world became a disgrace. Worst inequality and upward mobility anywhere ever and wrecked the world in 2008. You live on an imaginary planet dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww, you were fun until you got all butthurt and tried to insult me. You really, really believe that propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, the IRS and all the experts and all the journalists in the world are wrong. Only your bought off ex Coke head high School grad DJ's know the truth.... you people are absolutely ridiculously ignorant.
Click to expand...


You forgot law enforcement. You always say law enforcement in your drunken rants about the echo chamber.


----------



## Porthos

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


The family that has no food to eat?


----------



## P@triot

Conservative policy always produces prosperity...


----------



## P@triot

The world has seen the profound failure of the left-wing ideology over the previous decade and is turning to proven conservative principles for prosperity...

New Index Finds Rising Tide of Economic Freedom


----------



## P@triot

While the entitled whiners like JoeB and Franco will cry "luck", the reality is, you make your own "luck" with a very simple formula:


----------



## P@triot

Even in during the crisis of a pandemic, capitalism is _killing_ it. One company. 100,000 new hires.








						Walmart Hires 100,000 New Workers to Meet Spike in Demand: VP
					

Walmart confirmed that it has hired more than 100,000 workers to deal with a surge in demand for ...




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. All we have to do is reject the left-wing ideology.


> Kits might include high quality face masks, synthetic rubber gloves and, most important, general purpose antiviral compounds. The last is not yet available, but investing in their development would reduce fear in the public, stop hoarding practices that tend to harm social trust, and keep transportation systems operating.  It also would reduce pressure on doctors, nurses, and hospitals.


And before the left starts pointing out "government investment" - this is defense. Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. That includes defense against biological weapons.








						Preparing for a Future Biological Disaster
					

Commentary There are two keys to preparing for a future biological disaster: a strategy that keeps the military ...




					www.theepochtimes.com


----------



## linux07

So about that Trump reducing food stamps thing.....


----------



## P@triot

linux07 said:


> So about that Trump reducing food stamps thing.....


If your source is “Mother Jones”, you don’t have a source. 

If you have to point to a single month during an international pandemic crisis as “proof” that President Trump hasn’t been amazing, you don’t have a case.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. There is no debate about this. History has proven it.








						Where Do You Want to Live: Red State or Blue State? | PragerU
					

We're supposed to be the United States of America. But in many ways, we're now divided into two very different nations: red states and blue states. Which…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. True free market capitalism solves _every_ problem. We can fix healthcare with this simple model:








						Price Transparency: How to Fix Healthcare | PragerU
					

How can a simple blood test cost $30 at one lab and $300 at another across the street? The answer to this question could save billions, as well as make…




					www.prageru.com


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. True free market capitalism solves _every_ problem. We can fix healthcare with this simple model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Price Transparency: How to Fix Healthcare | PragerU
> 
> 
> How can a simple blood test cost $30 at one lab and $300 at another across the street? The answer to this question could save billions, as well as make…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.prageru.com


Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can better ensure true free market capitalism and greater individual responsibility.


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can better ensure true free market capitalism and greater individual responsibility.



The Antebellum South solved simple poverty 300 years ago. 

I actually think those like you would be happier as slaves - never having to care for yourself and most importantly never having to THINK.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can better ensure true free market capitalism and greater individual responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Antebellum South solved simple poverty 300 years ago.
> 
> I actually think those like you would be happier as slaves - never having to care for yourself and most importantly never having to THINK.
Click to expand...

And, you would be wrong, like usual.  

I actually understand our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution.  

And, no, the South did not solve anything.  Even the North had Poor laws.   Capitalism solved nothing, they merely criminalized being poor.


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> And, you would be wrong, like usual.
> 
> I actually understand our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution.
> 
> And, no, the South did not solve anything.  Even the North had Poor laws.   Capitalism solved nothing, they merely criminalized being poor.



Slaves had what your filthy party promises you. Guaranteed housing, medical care, food. This is what you seek, to be a slave.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you would be wrong, like usual.
> 
> I actually understand our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution.
> 
> And, no, the South did not solve anything.  Even the North had Poor laws.   Capitalism solved nothing, they merely criminalized being poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves had what your filthy party promises you. Guaranteed housing, medical care, food. This is what you seek, to be a slave.
Click to expand...

You simply misunderstand the concept.  Employment is at the will of either party.  How would what you allege work by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States? 

If you think about it, that solution helps free market capitalism more than it hinders it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you would be wrong, like usual.
> 
> I actually understand our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution.
> 
> And, no, the South did not solve anything.  Even the North had Poor laws.   Capitalism solved nothing, they merely criminalized being poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves had what your filthy party promises you. Guaranteed housing, medical care, food. This is what you seek, to be a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply misunderstand the concept.  Employment is at the will of either party.  How would what you allege work by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> If you think about it, that solution helps free market capitalism more than it hinders it.
Click to expand...


The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.   Yes, there will be those who are physically or mentally unable.  But I have no sympathy for those who simply do not try because they don't want to.    I have nothing but disgust for someone who refuses to try to get work, and then expects to be able to live of the fruits of someone else's labors.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.


UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.


----------



## Agit8r

Only because that adminsitration coerced states into allowing fewer to qualify









						Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps
					

The Trump administration said on Wednesday it will make it harder for states to keep residents in the U.S. food stamp program in a move that is projected to end benefits for nearly 700,000 people.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## dudmuck

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you would be wrong, like usual.
> 
> I actually understand our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution.
> 
> And, no, the South did not solve anything.  Even the North had Poor laws.   Capitalism solved nothing, they merely criminalized being poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves had what your filthy party promises you. Guaranteed housing, medical care, food. This is what you seek, to be a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply misunderstand the concept.  Employment is at the will of either party.  How would what you allege work by solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> If you think about it, that solution helps free market capitalism more than it hinders it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.   Yes, there will be those who are physically or mentally unable.  But I have no sympathy for those who simply do not try because they don't want to.    I have nothing but disgust for someone who refuses to try to get work, and then expects to be able to live of the fruits of someone else's labors.
Click to expand...

the premise of capitalism is the employer - employee releationship.
Just like a feudalism, the serf and lord.
Just like in slavery, the slave and master.
In capitalism, the employee and employer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...

UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.

What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
Click to expand...

Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.  

Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.

What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
Click to expand...

Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.

You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
Click to expand...

lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.  

Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
Click to expand...


I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.
Click to expand...

No, you don't.  My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.


----------



## initforme

At will employers are hateful spiteful anti american employers. Facts are facts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.
Click to expand...


Yes I can.    You claim that there is no equality under the law.

As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.   

But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.    You claim that there is no equality under the law.
> 
> As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.
> 
> But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.
Click to expand...

If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC. 

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.    You claim that there is no equality under the law.
> 
> As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.
> 
> But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.    You claim that there is no equality under the law.
> 
> As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.
> 
> But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
Click to expand...


UC is not a right.    It is a financial assistance program with strict parameters.

You are not being denied equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic premise of capitalism is that every person, at least tries to support themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> UC for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is support for themselves in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UC is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.   It is not welfare.
> 
> What you want is to be able to not work, by your own choice, and have others support you with the fruits of their labor.    The answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  It is about equality and equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States.  Employment is at the will of either party in an at-will employment State.  For-cause criteria for public goods and public services in an at-will employment State is a breach of our right to equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Are you for denying and disparaging the free market activity of Individual Liberty and rational choice on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equal protection under the law already exists where UC is concerned.    Both the employer and the employee can end the working relationship at any time.   If either does that, they both lose the benefit of the relationship.    The employer loses the labor of the employee and the employee loses the pay.    That is equal.
> 
> What you want is to be paid for doing nothing.    You did not lose your job because of cutbacks.  You walked away from a paying job because you do not want to work.   You are capable of working.  You just don't want to work.   Guess what, millions of working Americans don't want their paychecks cut to pay you for doing nothing.   Why are your wants more important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define, doing nothing.  Only capital must circulate under capitalism.  There can be no work requirement in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing nothing to provide for your own needs.
> 
> You expect others to provide what you need to live, when you make no effort to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I understand the law and what employment at the will of either party means.
> 
> Show me where the labor code defines at-will employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what "at will" employment means too.   I also understand that your claim of inequality are simply bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  My story can't be bogus and you can't prove it is bogus according to employment law or the labor code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.    You claim that there is no equality under the law.
> 
> As I have explained, when either the employer or the employee ends the relationship, you BOTH lose what you gained from the relationship.
> 
> But you have never explained why you think you are entitled to money that other people earned while you do nothing to take care of your needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If an employee can legally quit the State cannot deny or disparage that same right for UC.
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
Click to expand...


Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked to act as another welfare program is not an effort to cure poverty or homelessness, as you have claimed.

It is purely to justify you getting paid for doing nothing, without having to show a need.   Your disdain for means testing is likely because you still live at home.  And you want money to spend on games and such.   At least be honest about and stop with the attempts to couch it in altruistic terms.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. True free market capitalism solves _every_ problem. We can fix healthcare with this simple model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Price Transparency: How to Fix Healthcare | PragerU
> 
> 
> How can a simple blood test cost $30 at one lab and $300 at another across the street? The answer to this question could save billions, as well as make…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.prageru.com


Exact how would that solve the problem?


Did the free market solve the following problems;

old age poverty
injuries while at work
environmental protections
the interstate highway system
Rural electrification
our nation defense
equality of race
women's right to vote
healthcare


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. True free market capitalism solves _every_ problem. We can fix healthcare with this simple model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Price Transparency: How to Fix Healthcare | PragerU
> 
> 
> How can a simple blood test cost $30 at one lab and $300 at another across the street? The answer to this question could save billions, as well as make…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.prageru.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exact how would that solve the problem?
Click to expand...

The same exact way it drove laser eye surgery *way* down while improving outcomes - competition. If I can shop around for the best price for knee replacement surgery, it causes other hospitals losing my business to lower their prices on knee replacement surgery.

Seriously man...are you really _this_ dumb? Did you really need that explained to you or are you playing some weird trolling game?


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Did the free market solve the following problems; old age poverty


Uh...yeah. It raised the standard of living infinitely for everyone from newborns to the elderly.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> UC is not a right.


Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked


lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the free market solve the following problems; old age poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...yeah. It raised the standard of living infinitely for everyone from newborns to the elderly.
Click to expand...

How well did Capitalism do in 1929?  You realize the social programs put in place back then are still with us bailing out Capitalism ever since.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
Click to expand...


Nothing to rework?    lol

Only the following:
1) Reason for the program
2) Determining who is eligible for UC
3) How UC is funded

But other than that.....


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case.  Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to rework?    lol
> 
> Only the following:
> 1) Reason for the program
> 2) Determining who is eligible for UC
> 3) How UC is funded
> 
> But other than that.....
Click to expand...

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.  Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue.  The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC.  Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case.  Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
Click to expand...


Yes you would.   You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to rework?    lol
> 
> Only the following:
> 1) Reason for the program
> 2) Determining who is eligible for UC
> 3) How UC is funded
> 
> But other than that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.  Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue.  The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC.  Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".
Click to expand...


The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework.     If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case.  Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you would.   You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.
Click to expand...

You would appeal to ignorance of the law more.  Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions.  There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to rework?    lol
> 
> Only the following:
> 1) Reason for the program
> 2) Determining who is eligible for UC
> 3) How UC is funded
> 
> But other than that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.  Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue.  The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC.  Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework.     If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective.  It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to rework?    lol
> 
> Only the following:
> 1) Reason for the program
> 2) Determining who is eligible for UC
> 3) How UC is funded
> 
> But other than that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.  Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue.  The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC.  Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework.     If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective.  It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.
Click to expand...


You would have to change the mission of the program, who is eligible for the program, and how the program is funded.   The only thing that would not be new is the name.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case.  Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you would.   You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would appeal to ignorance of the law more.  Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions.  There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


I am doing no such thing.

I am arguing that your claims that you do not have equal protection under the law is a lie.

Please tell me, how are employers protected by the law but you are not?     And spare me the meaningless word-salad.  Just a simple answer.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to rework?    lol
> 
> Only the following:
> 1) Reason for the program
> 2) Determining who is eligible for UC
> 3) How UC is funded
> 
> But other than that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.  Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue.  The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC.  Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework.     If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective.  It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to change the mission of the program, who is eligible for the program, and how the program is funded.   The only thing that would not be new is the name.
Click to expand...

The mission of the program is to solve for an economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary and capricious political objectives that don't solve simple poverty in a Market Friendly manner. We would be lowering the cost of litigation for the private sector in the process. It would be the same thing, only doing a better job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case.  Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you would.   You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would appeal to ignorance of the law more.  Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions.  There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.
> 
> I am arguing that your claims that you do not have equal protection under the law is a lie.
> 
> Please tell me, how are employers protected by the law but you are not?     And spare me the meaningless word-salad.  Just a simple answer.
Click to expand...

If you can legally quit in an at-will employment State there is no basis to deny and disparage that faithful execution of the law.  On what basis does an At-Will employment State deny or disparage our privileges and immunities?  We have a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, it is painfully obvious that your continued insistence that Unemployment Compensation be completely reworked
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Winterborn, it is painfully obvious you are about a quick as molasses on a cold winter day.  There is nothing to rework, only faithful execution of existing laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing to rework?    lol
> 
> Only the following:
> 1) Reason for the program
> 2) Determining who is eligible for UC
> 3) How UC is funded
> 
> But other than that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place.  Equal protection of the laws is all that necessary. And, funding for UC is a State issue not an employer issue.  The private sector could see cost savings by not having to deal with UC.  Funding could be done via indirect taxes and the equivalent to "junk bonds instead of junk laws".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the list of things to be reworked is accurate, despite your claim that there is nothing to rework.     If you have to rework who is eligible and how it is funded, you have basically started an entire new program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective.  It is not a new program since we can use existing legal and physical infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to change the mission of the program, who is eligible for the program, and how the program is funded.   The only thing that would not be new is the name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mission of the program is to solve for an economic phenomena instead of more arbitrary and capricious political objectives that don't solve simple poverty in a Market Friendly manner. We would be lowering the cost of litigation for the private sector in the process. It would be the same thing, only doing a better job.
Click to expand...


No.   The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.   That is the clear and stated mission.   Turning it into unending welfare was never the mission.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> UC is not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn, equal protection of the laws is a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And you have equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not be arguing this issue if that were the case.  Only right wingers are full of fallacy but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you would.   You want a paycheck without earning it and without a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would appeal to ignorance of the law more.  Employment is at the will of either party for State public policy decisions.  There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.
> 
> I am arguing that your claims that you do not have equal protection under the law is a lie.
> 
> Please tell me, how are employers protected by the law but you are not?     And spare me the meaningless word-salad.  Just a simple answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can legally quit in an at-will employment State there is no basis to deny and disparage that faithful execution of the law.  On what basis does an At-Will employment State deny or disparage our privileges and immunities?  We have a First Amendment regarding the subjective value of morals.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can quit a job at any time.    And you can be fired at any time.    In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship.  You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor.  There is no inequality.

You continue to claim inequality, and yet you cannot name one benefit the employer gets while you get none.

As for the 1st amendment, please read the actual text of the amendment and tell me what bearing it has on this topic:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.


Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.


You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
Click to expand...


No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
Click to expand...


Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.   All races are eligible based on the same criteria.   You really are reaching to try and justify all this.   And yet, you refuse to answer any questions I ask.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
Click to expand...

It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism. 

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
Click to expand...

Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
Click to expand...


How does it benefit employers?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
Click to expand...


The black codes were outlawed.

UC was not reworked from its original mission.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
Click to expand...

Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The black codes were outlawed.
> 
> UC was not reworked from its original mission.
Click to expand...

Quite a reworking of that policy.  UC's original mission is too limited and merely needs to be expanded to cover our economic problems.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
Click to expand...


And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The black codes were outlawed.
> 
> UC was not reworked from its original mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a reworking of that policy.  UC's original mission is too limited and merely needs to be expanded to cover our economic problems.
Click to expand...


So the UC you want will be used to give an income to citizens who cannot work and those who choose not to work?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.
Click to expand...

Equality is equal protection of the law for UC.  That is equality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The black codes were outlawed.
> 
> UC was not reworked from its original mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a reworking of that policy.  UC's original mission is too limited and merely needs to be expanded to cover our economic problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and those who choose not to work?
Click to expand...

Show me where there is Any requirement to work in an at-will employment State. 

Faithful execution of the laws is all I am asking. 

CA Labor code at 2922: _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._

Requiring for-cause criteria for UC without proving that employment relationship existed is unConstitutional.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality is equal protection of the law for UC.  That is equality.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.    And you are protected by the same law that protects the employers.    You cannot be forced to work, and they cannot be forced to pay you if you quit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The black codes were outlawed.
> 
> UC was not reworked from its original mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a reworking of that policy.  UC's original mission is too limited and merely needs to be expanded to cover our economic problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and those who choose not to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where there is Any requirement to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Faithful execution of the laws is all I am asking.
> 
> CA Labor code at 2922: _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Requiring for-cause criteria for UC without proving that employment relationship existed is unConstitutional.
Click to expand...


And none of that pertains to who is eligible for UC.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality is equal protection of the law for UC.  That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    And you are protected by the same law that protects the employers.    You cannot be forced to work, and they cannot be forced to pay you if you quit.
Click to expand...

I am advocating removing that burden from employers.  Unemployment is an externality to firms.  It is a State responsibility.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The black codes were outlawed.
> 
> UC was not reworked from its original mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a reworking of that policy.  UC's original mission is too limited and merely needs to be expanded to cover our economic problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and those who choose not to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where there is Any requirement to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Faithful execution of the laws is all I am asking.
> 
> CA Labor code at 2922: _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Requiring for-cause criteria for UC without proving that employment relationship existed is unConstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none of that pertains to who is eligible for UC.
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law.  Where does the labor code state you cannot quit on an at-will basis and not collect unemployment compensation?  The labor could would have to say that for it to lawful for Labor faithfully executing at-will employment laws.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality is equal protection of the law for UC.  That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    And you are protected by the same law that protects the employers.    You cannot be forced to work, and they cannot be forced to pay you if you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating removing that burden from employers.  Unemployment is an externality to firms.  It is a State responsibility.
Click to expand...


And if the state is to be responsible, it will also be responsible for making sure all tax money spent goes only to those with a need.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The mission of UC is to provide temporary income for people who have lost their job through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> Black codes were still in effect when UC was first created and implemented.  That no longer applies in modern economic times since black codes were abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.   The black codes have nothing to do with the determination of who is eligible for unemployment in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why because that policy was entirely, reworked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The black codes were outlawed.
> 
> UC was not reworked from its original mission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a reworking of that policy.  UC's original mission is too limited and merely needs to be expanded to cover our economic problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and those who choose not to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where there is Any requirement to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Faithful execution of the laws is all I am asking.
> 
> CA Labor code at 2922: _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Requiring for-cause criteria for UC without proving that employment relationship existed is unConstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And none of that pertains to who is eligible for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law.  Where does the labor code state you cannot quit on an at-will basis and not collect unemployment compensation?  The labor could would have to say that for it to lawful for Labor faithfully executing at-will employment laws.
Click to expand...


It does not need to say it.   The right to quit is yours.   That does not mean there are no consequences to your choice.

The UC says you cannot collect unemployment if you willingly quit a job.


----------



## initforme

An employer that fires somebody without reason should not be able to hire another without a stiff monetary penalty.  At will is a rotten and bad policy.


----------



## WinterBorn

initforme said:


> An employer that fires somebody without reason should not be able to hire another without a stiff monetary penalty.  At will is a rotten and bad policy.



What about an employee who quits without reason?   Should they receive compensation?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality is equal protection of the law for UC.  That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    And you are protected by the same law that protects the employers.    You cannot be forced to work, and they cannot be forced to pay you if you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating removing that burden from employers.  Unemployment is an externality to firms.  It is a State responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the state is to be responsible, it will also be responsible for making sure all tax money spent goes only to those with a need.
Click to expand...

We have a general welfare clause.  Solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure promotes the general welfare not the general badfare, as the Right Wing would prefer.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> It does not need to say it.


Yes, it does.  Especially in any at-will employment State.  

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwill_employment#:~:text=In%20U.S.%20labor%20law%2C%20at,race%2C%20religion%20or%20sexuality).


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> The UC says you cannot collect unemployment if you willingly quit a job.


UC is provided by an Agency of a State.  States have no authority to deny or disparage our civil liberties through unequal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

initforme said:


> An employer that fires somebody without reason should not be able to hire another without a stiff monetary penalty.  At will is a rotten and bad policy.


Right wingers don't care as long as those with the most Gold make the most rules under Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> An employer that fires somebody without reason should not be able to hire another without a stiff monetary penalty.  At will is a rotten and bad policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about an employee who quits without reason?   Should they receive compensation?
Click to expand...

Yes, in an at-will employment State under our form of Capitalism where capital must circulate for the good of the economy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can quit a job at any time. And you can be fired at any time. In both cases you lose the benefits of the working relationship. You no longer get paid and the employer no longer gets the benefit of your labor. There is no inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  It is about State public policies.  Show me any work requirement in any State Constitution or the labor code in any at-will employment State for UC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.   You have yet to show the law benefits the employers while not benefiting the employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does benefit employers while putting a down pressure on wages for Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it benefit employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being able to hire and fire on an at-will basis benefits employers.  Why no State policy that says employers can't fire anyone without suffering a tax loss if they don't have a good reason?  That could include corporate downsizing since that happens on a for-profit basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And employees are free to quit at any time.    That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality is equal protection of the law for UC.  That is equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    And you are protected by the same law that protects the employers.    You cannot be forced to work, and they cannot be forced to pay you if you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating removing that burden from employers.  Unemployment is an externality to firms.  It is a State responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the state is to be responsible, it will also be responsible for making sure all tax money spent goes only to those with a need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a general welfare clause.  Solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure promotes the general welfare not the general badfare, as the Right Wing would prefer.
Click to expand...


Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.   So demonstrating a need to income from the state is a logical step.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.


Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
Click to expand...


Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.

And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
Click to expand...

Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.  

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.  

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
Click to expand...


Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

The whole point about equality means nothing to you?

Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.


----------



## initforme

I walked off 3 jobs in my life...never gave notice just didn't show up anymore.....best 3 days of my life.  Exhilarating.  I always found a better one.  A loyal employee is always looking for better pay and let's the boss know they are looking.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole point about equality means nothing to you?
> 
> Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.
Click to expand...


I have not disputed general welfare.   I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.


----------



## WinterBorn

initforme said:


> I walked off 3 jobs in my life...never gave notice just didn't show up anymore.....best 3 days of my life.  Exhilarating.  I always found a better one.  A loyal employee is always looking for better pay and let's the boss know they are looking.



Exactly!   But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.

And a person who has the means to survive without assistance should not receive tax dollars.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole point about equality means nothing to you?
> 
> Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not disputed general welfare.   I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.
Click to expand...

Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses?  Only right wingers allege what you do.  Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.


Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole point about equality means nothing to you?
> 
> Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not disputed general welfare.   I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses?  Only right wingers allege what you do.  Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.
Click to expand...


I am all for cutting corporate welfare.

But, I will ask you again, if a mean test disqualifies you from welfare, why should you receive an income from other people's taxes.   The means test shows you can live without assistance.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
Click to expand...


The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the free market solve the following problems; old age poverty
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...yeah. It raised the standard of living infinitely for everyone from newborns to the elderly.
Click to expand...

Adam Smith capitalism didn't solve the problem of elderly poverty. Social Security did.


----------



## otto105

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Strawman bullshit argument.


----------



## initforme

If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.


----------



## WinterBorn

initforme said:


> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.



And if they walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole point about equality means nothing to you?
> 
> Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not disputed general welfare.   I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses?  Only right wingers allege what you do.  Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am all for cutting corporate welfare.
> 
> But, I will ask you again, if a mean test disqualifies you from welfare, why should you receive an income from other people's taxes.   The means test shows you can live without assistance.
Click to expand...

You confuse UC with means tested welfare.  Both promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.  Since our welfare clause is General not common or limited, it means we are free to come up with any solution that promotes the general welfare but not the general malfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
Click to expand...

For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
Click to expand...

Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole point about equality means nothing to you?
> 
> Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not disputed general welfare.   I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses?  Only right wingers allege what you do.  Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am all for cutting corporate welfare.
> 
> But, I will ask you again, if a mean test disqualifies you from welfare, why should you receive an income from other people's taxes.   The means test shows you can live without assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse UC with means tested welfare.  Both promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.  Since our welfare clause is General not common or limited, it means we are free to come up with any solution that promotes the general welfare but not the general malfare.
Click to expand...


And still you dodge the question.

Once again, if a means test determines you can live without gov't assistance, why should tax payer funds be given to you?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
Click to expand...


I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.


----------



## otto105

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.
Click to expand...

God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.


----------



## WinterBorn

otto105 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.
Click to expand...


Greed based?     It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live?    I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.


----------



## otto105

WinterBorn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greed based?     It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live?    I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post where on this planet your greed based economic theory is practiced with success.


----------



## WinterBorn

otto105 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greed based?     It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live?    I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you post where on this planet your greed based economic theory is practiced with success.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge.   I think the subject is fine where it is.   But feel free to start a thread on it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promoting the general welfare does not include giving tax dollars to people who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who doesn't need Capital under our form of Capitalism  There is no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State especially since that is against Capitalism.  Capitalism is about voluntary association that leads to mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone needs capital.   But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> And before you say it, the capital will circulate if the taxes are left with those who earned the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.
> 
> From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.--https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
> 
> Equality is all the socialism we need for our market economy.
> 
> “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
> 
> ― Anatole France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice post.  Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole point about equality means nothing to you?
> 
> Our Constitution expressly declares that it is the general welfare that must be provided for not the general malfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not disputed general welfare.   I am disputing that general welfare means taking tax dollars from those who earned them and giving them to those who want them, but have the means to survive without assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you already forget about corporate welfare that has paid out multimillion dollar bonuses?  Only right wingers allege what you do.  Even the Republicans "reworked" their position on that issue since Hoover proved them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am all for cutting corporate welfare.
> 
> But, I will ask you again, if a mean test disqualifies you from welfare, why should you receive an income from other people's taxes.   The means test shows you can live without assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse UC with means tested welfare.  Both promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.  Since our welfare clause is General not common or limited, it means we are free to come up with any solution that promotes the general welfare but not the general malfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still you dodge the question.
> 
> Once again, if a means test determines you can live without gov't assistance, why should tax payer funds be given to you?
Click to expand...

Not a dodge but a real explanation you refuse to accept.  I thought you were for the reality tv guy?  The law is the law in an at-will employment State.  We can promote the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner, on an at-will basis.  

There is no general malfare clause in our federal Constitution.  

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.
Click to expand...

Have you been complaining about our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?  There is no general warfare clause in our Constitution.  And, the general welfare cannot be confused with the general malfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
Click to expand...

What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But an employee who walks off a job and doesn't even look for another job does not deserve compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from that employer but from the State.  Employment is at the will of either party.  We just need better management of this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you walked off a job, and refuse to look for another, should disqualify you from receiving any tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For being faithful to our at-will employment laws in an at-will employment State?  You don't believe in morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that there should be a good reason for tax payer's money to be given to someone.    If they can live without it, the money should not be given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, another libertarian posting his greed based political philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greed based?     It is greedy to think money should not be taken from the one who earned it and given to someone who already has enough to live?    I think your definition of "greed" is suspect.
Click to expand...


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
Click to expand...


The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
Click to expand...

However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.


We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government.  It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> 
> 
> We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government.  It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.
Click to expand...


Having money taken by force from the one who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it is reserved for survival.    If you want to thrive you have to do something.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
Click to expand...

Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> 
> 
> We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government.  It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having money taken by force from the one who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it is reserved for survival.    If you want to thrive you have to do something.
Click to expand...

Means nothing.  Simply bringing it up is disingenuous.   

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People to our federal Congress to provide for the general welfare.  Any questions?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
Click to expand...


We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> 
> 
> We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government.  It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having money taken by force from the one who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it is reserved for survival.    If you want to thrive you have to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing.  Simply bringing it up is disingenuous.
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People to our federal Congress to provide for the general welfare.  Any questions?
Click to expand...


No questions that I have not asked you already, and you refused to answer.

The tax dollars given to people is so they can live, not so they do well.


----------



## initforme

All of this leafs to why a declining birthrate only helps a nation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But those who already have what they need to survive should not get tax dollars given to them.
> 
> 
> 
> We already have poverty guidelines promulgated by the socialism of Government.  It is not about mere survival in our first world economy but about being able to thrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having money taken by force from the one who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it is reserved for survival.    If you want to thrive you have to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing.  Simply bringing it up is disingenuous.
> 
> The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People to our federal Congress to provide for the general welfare.  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No questions that I have not asked you already, and you refused to answer.
> 
> The tax dollars given to people is so they can live, not so they do well.
Click to expand...

We have poverty guidelines.  Any more disingenuity from the morally challenged right wing?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
Click to expand...


And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
Click to expand...

When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
Click to expand...

Is that why we still have a homeless problem?


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?
Click to expand...

When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
Click to expand...


We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?
Click to expand...


YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> How well did Capitalism do in 1929?


Just fine, thanks. Until FDR stepped in and created The Great Depression (as confirmed by left-wing UCLA).

Thank God Ronald Reagan was in charge in 1987 during “Black Monday”. Had it been a Dumbocrat, the US would have experienced two “Great Depressions”.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
Click to expand...

Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.
Click to expand...

lol.  I believe in equality and equal protection of the laws, why don't You?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How well did Capitalism do in 1929?
> 
> 
> 
> Just fine, thanks. Until FDR stepped in and created The Great Depression (as confirmed by left-wing UCLA).
> 
> Thank God Ronald Reagan was in charge in 1987 during “Black Monday”. Had it been a Dumbocrat, the US would have experienced two “Great Depressions”.
Click to expand...

Hoover was a Republican and was not as fantastical as modern the modern right wing.


----------



## Indeependent

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I believe in equality and equal protection of the laws, why don't You?
Click to expand...

Equality of education is good.


----------



## danielpalos

Indeependent said:


> Equality of education is good.


With equal protection of the laws for UC, people could go to school as long as they want and not need to go into debt for it.  We need a more educated workforce in our first world economy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...


Pure bullshit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When's the last time you ran a company as opposed to running your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had a valid argument instead of just running Your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are arguing the same point with no more valid argument than you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I believe in equality and equal protection of the laws, why don't You?
Click to expand...


I do.   What you believe in is for a select few to be able to get paid out of tax dollars without providing anything for that money.   And to not have to prove you need it, you just want it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit.
Click to expand...

lol.  You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations.  Ready full of fallacy right winger?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> I do.


lol.  A select few is capitalism not the socialism of equality.

If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when _all persons alike_ share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle


----------



## Donald H

P@triot said:


> An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% _increase_ in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?


Try to keep it in context with the miles long foodlines and starving people on America's streets. 

It's easy to take away food stamp subsistence when it's applauded as the American way.

It's the same 'way' that is the lack of health care for nearly a hundred million people! The equivalent of third world standards that can't even measure up to Cuba!


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations.  Ready full of fallacy right winger?
Click to expand...


I have posted links to the major causes of homelessness.    I have asked you about the lack of a mailing address and bank account.  I have asked about the dangers of giving addicts cash.  I have asked about the dangers of homeless people having wads of cash on their person.    You just gloss over all that because you want welfare without a means test.


----------



## Indeependent

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations.  Ready full of fallacy right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted links to the major causes of homelessness.    I have asked you about the lack of a mailing address and bank account.  I have asked about the dangers of giving addicts cash.  I have asked about the dangers of homeless people having wads of cash on their person.    You just gloss over all that because you want welfare without a means test.
Click to expand...

And yet you still feed the troll.


----------



## Donald H

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> I have posted links to the major causes of homelessness.    I have asked you about the lack of a mailing address and bank account.  I have asked about the dangers of giving addicts cash.  I have asked about the dangers of homeless people having wads of cash on their person.    You just gloss over all that because you want welfare without a means test.



That interests me! Do you want a rational and decent discussion? In case you don't know already, I'm a Canadian and I can keep US politics out of it. In my opinion neither side has any more credibility than the other in your politics.
Everything you've mentioned is directly related to socially responsible government, not corrupted and greedy capitalism.

What is the 'means test' you bring up?


----------



## WinterBorn

Indeependent said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations.  Ready full of fallacy right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted links to the major causes of homelessness.    I have asked you about the lack of a mailing address and bank account.  I have asked about the dangers of giving addicts cash.  I have asked about the dangers of homeless people having wads of cash on their person.    You just gloss over all that because you want welfare without a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you still feed the troll.
Click to expand...


Yep.   Boredom can cause all sorts of odd things.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective.


“Equal protection of the law” currently exists and has for 100 years.


----------



## P@triot

Donald H said:


> Everything you've mentioned is directly related to socially responsible government...


And therein lies the problem. As a Canadian, you are not knowledgeable about the United States Constitution to any significant degree.

It explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and being “socially responsible” is *not* one of them. As James Madison once said, “*Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government*”.


Donald H said:


> not corrupted and greedy capitalism.


Capitalism can neither be “corrupt” nor “greedy”. It is a _system_. An economic system to be exact. It doesn’t have feelings, thoughts, or actions. Only people can be corrupt or greedy.

You’re 0-for-2 Canadian. Probably should quit before this gets any worse.


----------



## Agit8r

Those food stamp recipients just lost eligibility. And many because the homeless folks y'all complain about.


----------



## Donald H

P@triot said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've mentioned is directly related to socially responsible government...
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem. As a Canadian, you are not knowledgeable about the United States Constitution to any significant degree.
> 
> It explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and being “socially responsible” is *not* one of them. As James Madison once said, “*Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government*”.
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> not corrupted and greedy capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism can neither be “corrupt” nor “greedy”. It is a _system_. An economic system to be exact. It doesn’t have feelings, thoughts, or actions. Only people can be corrupt or greedy.
> 
> You’re 0-for-2 Canadian. Probably should quit before this gets any worse.
Click to expand...

See me in the CDZ section where you're obliged to act like a grownup. 
I'm more than happy to talk to Americans but I won't be dragged down into your cesspools of hate and racism. We're finished here!


----------



## P@triot

Donald H said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've mentioned is directly related to socially responsible government...
> 
> 
> 
> And therein lies the problem. As a Canadian, you are not knowledgeable about the United States Constitution to any significant degree.
> 
> It explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and being “socially responsible” is *not* one of them. As James Madison once said, “*Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government*”.
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> not corrupted and greedy capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism can neither be “corrupt” nor “greedy”. It is a _system_. An economic system to be exact. It doesn’t have feelings, thoughts, or actions. Only people can be corrupt or greedy.
> 
> You’re 0-for-2 Canadian. Probably should quit before this gets any worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See me in the CDZ section where you're obliged to act like a grownup.
> I'm more than happy to talk to Americans but I won't be dragged down into your cesspools of hate and racism. We're finished here!
Click to expand...

Bwahahaha! I didn’t say a single “hateful” or “racist” thing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations.  Ready full of fallacy right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted links to the major causes of homelessness.    I have asked you about the lack of a mailing address and bank account.  I have asked about the dangers of giving addicts cash.  I have asked about the dangers of homeless people having wads of cash on their person.    You just gloss over all that because you want welfare without a means test.
Click to expand...

All I remember is that you appealed to ignorance of modern times.  The eviction moratorium is expiring soon.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the laws is simple and more cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> “Equal protection of the law” currently exists and has for 100 years.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't and you can't prove that it has or does now.  Black codes is as seriously as I can take right wingers appealing to ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> And therein lies the problem. As a Canadian, you are not knowledgeable about the United States Constitution to any significant degree.


lol.  Neither does the right wing.  Fantasy is all y'all have not any form of moral of true witness bearing or faithful execution of the laws.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one can't leave one job and immediately find another with the same pay them the system is not working according to true capitalism.   In these times stimulus checks should go out to every citizen making less than 80 grand whether they are employed at this time or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the walk off a job and make no attempt to find another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about express law regarding the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a human leech would expect to be given funds from tax payers when they have enough to live on without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you referring to?  Why do we have a homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem has nothing to do with someone having enough to live, but demanding an additional income at tax payer expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However did you reach your conclusion?  We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply trying to change the subject.    Someone who is homeless would qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they on the street?  UC for simply being unemployed is easier and more economically efficient.  Means tested welfare generates a multiplier of around .8 while UC for simply being unemployed has been measured at 2 or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been through this numerous times.   The majority of homeless have problems involving mental issues and addictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  With UC for simply being unemployed they could be going to rehab and have a "roof over their heads".   Free market Capitalism is not just for the Richest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they would, no doubt, pass a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why we still have a homeless problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We still have a homeless problem mostly because of untreated mental illness and addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  We have a homeless problem due to unequal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You have no "gospel Truth" you need valid arguments with quotes and citations.  Ready full of fallacy right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted links to the major causes of homelessness.    I have asked you about the lack of a mailing address and bank account.  I have asked about the dangers of giving addicts cash.  I have asked about the dangers of homeless people having wads of cash on their person.    You just gloss over all that because you want welfare without a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I remember is that you appealed to ignorance of modern times.  The eviction moratorium is expiring soon.
Click to expand...


I remember you accusing me of that, yes.    I did not, of course, appeal to ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos




----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


>



I am sure it is a tragic video.  I am not denying that homelessness is a serious problem.

I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness.   It is ridiculous.

The only complaint you have where welfare is concerned is the means test.    In other words, you want states to give out tax dollars without the recipients having to show they need them.   You want to completely revamp UC, despite the fact that is works for what it is designed to do.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness. It is ridiculous.


Why do you believe using the socialism of Government to solve simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis, is ridiculous?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness. It is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe using the socialism of Government to solve simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis, is ridiculous?
Click to expand...


I did not say that.   I believe that the welfare is the answer, not a completely revamped UC system.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness. It is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe using the socialism of Government to solve simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis, is ridiculous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   I believe that the welfare is the answer, not a completely revamped UC system.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe means tested welfare is the answer?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness. It is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe using the socialism of Government to solve simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis, is ridiculous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   I believe that the welfare is the answer, not a completely revamped UC system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe means tested welfare is the answer?
Click to expand...


Because it addresses the problem, yet does not allow tax dollars to me given to people who do not need it to get by.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness. It is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe using the socialism of Government to solve simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis, is ridiculous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   I believe that the welfare is the answer, not a completely revamped UC system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe means tested welfare is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it addresses the problem, yet does not allow tax dollars to me given to people who do not need it to get by.
Click to expand...

People who are unemployed need to be able to circulate capital.  

Means testing does nothing to solve simple poverty only complex poverty as measured by means testing.  UC for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalisms, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just denying that your simplistic answer of turning unemployment compensation into welfare is the answer to all poverty and homelessness. It is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe using the socialism of Government to solve simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis, is ridiculous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   I believe that the welfare is the answer, not a completely revamped UC system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe means tested welfare is the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it addresses the problem, yet does not allow tax dollars to me given to people who do not need it to get by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who are unemployed need to be able to circulate capital.
> 
> Means testing does nothing to solve simple poverty only complex poverty as measured by means testing.  UC for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State actually solves for the economic phenomena of Capitalisms, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


Capital will still circulate, whether it is redistributed by the state or not.   The people who earn the money will not stuff it into a mattress.

People who are unemployed, through their own choice, and have the means to live, do not need money forcibly taken from the people who earned it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Capital will still circulate, whether it is redistributed by the state or not.


Why do you believe that?  The Only reason for Socialism's existence is because what you allege is simply False and Always has been.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital will still circulate, whether it is redistributed by the state or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  The Only reason for Socialism's existence is because what you allege is simply False and Always has been.
Click to expand...


Unless you are claiming that any money not taken by taxes will be stored in their house, what I claim is true.  Capital will circulate.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital will still circulate, whether it is redistributed by the state or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  The Only reason for Socialism's existence is because what you allege is simply False and Always has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are claiming that any money not taken by taxes will be stored in their house, what I claim is true.  Capital will circulate.
Click to expand...

Not very well.  If that is your economic rationale, the public policies enacted via the socialism of Government created the first world we know today.  True capitalism is usually third world. 

Both promote and provide for the (socialism of) the general welfare means using public policies for economic purposes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Equal protection of the law” currently exists and has for 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't and you can't prove that it has or does now.
Click to expand...

Sure I can. Every court case shows it. As I stated previously, the problem is what you want the law to say and what it _actually_ says. There is a huge disconnect there, but you're too stupid to know it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital will still circulate, whether it is redistributed by the state or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  The Only reason for Socialism's existence is because what you allege is simply False and Always has been.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. The only reason for the existence of socialism is ignorance. You illustrate it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Equal protection of the law” currently exists and has for 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't and you can't prove that it has or does now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can. Every court case shows it. As I stated previously, the problem is what you want the law to say and what it _actually_ says. There is a huge disconnect there, but you're too stupid to know it.
Click to expand...

Maybe in Right Wing fantasy.  I know of no Court cases where equal protection of the law for UC in an at-will employment State exists, otherwise, States would have no repugnant statutes on the books for UC in any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital will still circulate, whether it is redistributed by the state or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that?  The Only reason for Socialism's existence is because what you allege is simply False and Always has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The only reason for the existence of socialism is ignorance. You illustrate it.
Click to expand...

You illustrate it more with nothing but appeals to ignorance and argumentum ad hominem. Prove Your assertion with a Valid argument in the Public Domain, right winger.  Or, simply be full of fallacy in that same venue.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I know of no Court cases where equal protection of the law for UC in an at-will employment State exists, otherwise, States would have no repugnant statutes on the books for UC in any at-will employment State.


Ok, "court" is *not* a proper noun and it is *not* starting a sentence there, so it should not be capitalized. If you can't learn our native language, don't bother trolling.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I know of no Court cases where equal protection of the law for UC in an at-will employment State exists, otherwise, States would have no repugnant statutes on the books for UC in any at-will employment State.


Ok, "state" is *not* a proper noun and it is *not* starting a sentence there, so it should not be capitalized. If you can't learn our native language, don't bother trolling.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You illustrate it more with nothing but appeals to ignorance and argumentum ad hominem. Prove *Y*our assertion with a *V*alid argument in the *P*ublic *D*omain, right winger.


Says the Chinese disinformation dill-hole who routinely capitalizes standard nouns, adjectives, and verbs in the middle of a sentence  

You're literally the poster child for why children should stay in school. That's not a compliment.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I know of no Court cases where equal protection of the law for UC in an at-will employment State exists,


The existing laws are equally applied to all businesses and all citizens the same. The problem is the disconnect between what the laws actually say, and what your ignorant mind _wants _them to say.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Prove Your assertion with a Valid argument...


Sure thing! No problem! Ready? Here we go:

*1. *Venezuela

*2.* Cuba

*3.* U.S.S.R.

Game over. You lose. Thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos

Proof, right wingers have nothing but the immorality of deliberate appeals to ignorance and false witness bearing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Proof, right wingers have nothing but the immorality of deliberate appeals to ignorance and false witness bearing.


Proof that Daniel has no knowledge of the subject matter and resorts to copy and pasting the same nonsensical comment over and over.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. All it requires rejecting the leftist lunacy in its entirety. Remember, Elon Musk's operations were in California. But like tens of thousands of other corporations, he moved out and moved to Texas. And look at all of the jobs being created...








						Elon Musk: Tesla hiring 10,000-plus employees for Austin, Texas Gigafactory
					

Tesla's next Gigafactory needs workers and a college degree isn't required for many positions.




					www.techrepublic.com


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. All it requires rejecting the leftist lunacy in its entirety. Remember, Elon Musk's operations were in California. But like tens of thousands of other corporations, he moved out and moved to Texas. And look at all of the jobs being created...








						Elon Musk hiring "several thousand" people to work at SpaceX Starbase in Texas
					

Musk tweeted that he needs more employees, and he is giving $30 million to the community where SpaceX launches its prototype Mars rockets.




					www.techrepublic.com


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. All it requires rejecting the leftist lunacy in its entirety. Remember, Elon Musk's operations were in California. But like tens of thousands of other corporations, he moved out and moved to Texas. And look at all of the jobs being created...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk hiring "several thousand" people to work at SpaceX Starbase in Texas
> 
> 
> Musk tweeted that he needs more employees, and he is giving $30 million to the community where SpaceX launches its prototype Mars rockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techrepublic.com


Coincidence or conspiracy to get Texas to vote blue and not red?


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. All it requires rejecting the leftist lunacy in its entirety. Remember, Elon Musk's operations were in California. But like tens of thousands of other corporations, he moved out and moved to Texas. And look at all of the jobs being created...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk hiring "several thousand" people to work at SpaceX Starbase in Texas
> 
> 
> Musk tweeted that he needs more employees, and he is giving $30 million to the community where SpaceX launches its prototype Mars rockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techrepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidence or conspiracy to get Texas to vote blue and not red?
Click to expand...


Musk is a conservative, you moron.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the blueprint for prosperity. All it requires rejecting the leftist lunacy in its entirety. Remember, Elon Musk's operations were in California. But like tens of thousands of other corporations, he moved out and moved to Texas. And look at all of the jobs being created...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk hiring "several thousand" people to work at SpaceX Starbase in Texas
> 
> 
> Musk tweeted that he needs more employees, and he is giving $30 million to the community where SpaceX launches its prototype Mars rockets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techrepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidence or conspiracy to get Texas to vote blue and not red?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Musk is a conservative, you moron.
Click to expand...

So what.  Even the electoral college requires more than one vote, "smarty pants".


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. Free markets - free from government regulations, corruption, and red-tape - results in a robust economy and transformative innovation for mankind.








						Real Infrastructure Opportunity for Congress: Speed Deployment of 5G
					

The American Broadband Act would eliminate unreasonable restrictions and excessive fees that many localities impose before granting rights-of-way access and construction permits for towers and antennas.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## Cellblock2429

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. Free markets - free from government regulations, corruption, and red-tape - results in a robust economy and transformative innovation for mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Infrastructure Opportunity for Congress: Speed Deployment of 5G
> 
> 
> The American Broadband Act would eliminate unreasonable restrictions and excessive fees that many localities impose before granting rights-of-way access and construction permits for towers and antennas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


/——/ Yeah, but liberals know what’s best for us, and Americans don’t deserve to be prosperous. We should be taxed and regulated until we’re as miserable as those socialist nanny states and commie dictatorships.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Yeah, but liberals know what’s best for us, and Americans don’t deserve to be prosperous. We should be taxed and regulated until we’re as miserable as those socialist nanny states and commie dictatorships.


Who doesn't love modern broadband times?  That package should be included in the overall infrastructure upgrade.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Who doesn't love modern broadband times?  That package should be included in the overall infrastructure upgrade.



Internet providers have been upgrading almost constantly for 25+ years.    And being private businesses, they are making money from those upgrades.

We need to save the tax dollars for the parts of the infrastructure that the gov't is responsible for.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Internet providers have been upgrading almost constantly for 25+ years.    And being private businesses, they are making money from those upgrades.
> 
> We need to save the tax dollars for the parts of the infrastructure that the gov't is responsible for.


We should cut the extra-Constitutional spending on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  That money could be put to better use on "social welfare spending" than on "military welfare spending".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> We should cut the extra-Constitutional spending on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  That money could be put to better use on "social welfare spending" than on "military welfare spending".



I have long been an advocate for cutting defense spending by roughly one-third.    And there is much that could be done for the people with the savings.

But just as an FYI, there will still not be an unemployment compensation check for those who quit their job and who do not even look for another.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> I have long been an advocate for cutting defense spending by roughly one-third.    And there is much that could be done for the people with the savings.
> 
> But just as an FYI, there will still not be an unemployment compensation check for those who quit their job and who do not even look for another.


I don't advocate a percentage but a risk assessment to determine what we need most for the common Defense.

And, your opinion doesn't matter since that issue is before the Court now.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I don't advocate a percentage but a risk assessment to determine what we need most for the common Defense.
> 
> And, your opinion doesn't matter since that issue is before the Court now.



I am sure the court is having a good laugh.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> I am sure the court is having a good laugh.


You are welcome to love your own opinion more than Constitutional law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> You are welcome to love your own opinion more than Constitutional law.



My opinion is in line with Constitutional Law.

Your insistence that not allowing someone who quits a job to draw UC being unconstitutional is bogus and always has been.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> My opinion is in line with Constitutional Law.
> 
> Your insistence that not allowing someone who quits a job to draw UC being unconstitutional is bogus and always has been.


No, it isn't.  You simply love your opinion more than any sublime Truth(value) discoverable through argumentation.   You have no understanding of the concept, storyteller.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> No, it isn't.  You simply love your opinion more than any sublime Truth(value) discoverable through argumentation.   You have no understanding of the concept, storyteller.


Be sure to let us know when the judge rules against you, and tell us how he doesn't understand the law.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Be sure to let us know when the judge rules against you, and tell us how he doesn't understand the law.


I am not the one with nothing but continuance, diversion, or other forms of fallacies.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> I am not the one with nothing but continuance, diversion, or other forms of fallacies.


That has nothing to do with the ruling. Be sure to tell us how the judge doesn't understand the law when you lose.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I am not the one with nothing but continuance, diversion, or other forms of fallacies.



Yes, you are.    Your claims that the unemployment compensation is somehow inequality before the law is nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> That has nothing to do with the ruling. Be sure to tell us how the judge doesn't understand the law when you lose.


The judge has to apply the law, not right-wing fantasy.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Yes, you are.    Your claims that the unemployment compensation is somehow inequality before the law is nothing but fallacy.


Now, all you need is a valid argument to support your story, storyteller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Now, all you need is a valid argument to support your story, storyteller.



No, I have asked you numerous times to explain how the UC law is in violation of the equality called for by the US Constitution.   You have yet to provide an answer.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> No, I have asked you numerous times to explain how the UC law is in violation of the equality called for by the US Constitution.   You have yet to provide an answer.


lol.  Ok.  I have no problem supporting my position Every time it comes up; unlike the fake news right-wing fantasists. 

Here is the federal doctrine regarding employment at will:

_At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."_

Why do you believe any State has any authority to enact any public policies that are repugnant to that understanding of employment at the will of Either party not just one party or the State for Any benefits enacted by the legislature?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> The judge has to apply the law, not right-wing fantasy.  Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.


That's what I mean. He's going to rule against you, which will leave you with two choices. Either he doesn't understand the law or you don't. That's why I'm going to be interested to watch you explain to us how you know the law better than he does.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> He's going to rule against you, which will leave you with two choices.


lol.  You need a valid legal argument not right-wing fantasy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> lol.  You need a valid legal argument not right-wing fantasy.


I'm very confident he will rule against you. Be sure to tell us when he does.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> I'm very confident he will rule against you. Be sure to tell us when he does.


I am very confident you have nothing but right-wing fantasy not any clue or any Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> That's why I'm going to be interested to watch you explain to us how you know the law better than he does.


All the Judicature has proved thus far, is that under Capitalism, money Talks and can purchase quality time before the Court even if only with scores of frivolous lawsuits while merit walks.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> All the Judicature has proved thus far, is that under Capitalism, money Talks and can purchase quality time before the Court even if only with scores of frivolous lawsuits while merit walks.


I'm really not surprised you wrote that, because you're laying the groundwork for your excuse when you lose. You will say everything EXCEPT that you were wrong and your case had no merit. Which means you will still think you are right and the entire legal profession is wrong. Every judge in the country could laugh your case out of court and you'd still come on here spouting the same failed carp and insist that they are all wrong and only you are right.

Actually, tell us, what would it take for you to admit you are wrong?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> I'm really not surprised you wrote that, because you're laying the groundwork for your excuse when you lose. You will say everything EXCEPT that you were wrong and your case had no merit. Which means you will still think you are right and the entire legal profession is wrong. Every judge in the country could laugh your case out of court and you'd still come on here spouting the same failed carp and insist that they are all wrong and only you are right.
> 
> Actually, tell us, what would it take for you to admit you are wrong?


lol.  I get to proclaim that right-wingers are and were, nothing but filthy, immoral and intellectual false witness bearers wno don't care about natural rights or being legal to express laws.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Actually, tell us, what would it take for you to admit you are wrong?


Me resorting to fallacy and being clueless and Causeless about the issues I argue.  It really is that simple. I don't love my Opinion more than Constitutional law.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Me resorting to fallacy and being clueless and Causeless about the issues I argue.  It really is that simple. I don't love my Opinion more than Constitutional law.


And when every legal mind in the country explains to you how your opinion on Constitutional law is wrong, what will you do?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> lol.  I get to proclaim that right-wingers are and were, nothing but filthy, immoral and intellectual false witness bearers wno don't care about natural rights or being legal to express laws.


Except that you've been claiming this for years and have never been right about it once.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> And when every legal mind in the country explains to you how your opinion on Constitutional law is wrong, what will you do?


Get them on here.  No one but ignorant right-wingers are claiming what y'all do.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Except that you've been claiming this for years and have never been right about it once.


Only because right-wingers have no moral of true witness bearing.  Being clueless and Causeless and claiming what y'all do inspires absolutely no confidence in y'all's sincerity.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Get them on here.  No one but ignorant right-wingers are claiming what y'all do.


Don't have to. You're going to have a judge tell you. Also, there have been no successful challenges to UC law saying that it is unconstitutional. When the preponderance of legal opinion is solidly against you, it behooves you to acknowledge that you are incorrect.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Only because right-wingers have no moral of true witness bearing.  Being clueless and Causeless and claiming what y'all do inspires absolutely no confidence in y'all's sincerity.


And what excuse are you going to give when the judge tells you as well. Are you going to say he's lying, or are you going to say he doesn't understand the law as well as you do?

And, please please do tell us his reaction when you tell him he doesn't understand the law. After, of course, he releases you from being jailed for contempt of court.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Don't have to. You're going to have a judge tell you. Also, there have been no successful challenges to UC law saying that it is unconstitutional. When the preponderance of legal opinion is solidly against you, it behooves you to acknowledge that you are incorrect.


I filed my case with the Court back in September of last year.  No one has suggested it has no merit.  Why should I take right wingers seriously when they have no valid (legal or otherwise) arguments?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> And what excuse are you going to give when the judge tells you as well. Are you going to say he's lying, or are you going to say he doesn't understand the law as well as you do?
> 
> And, please please do tell us his reaction when you tell him he doesn't understand the law. After, of course, he releases you from being jailed for contempt of court.


Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  I am not going to lose on the merits.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> I filed my case with the Court back in September of last year.  No one has suggested it has no merit.  Why should I take right wingers seriously when they have no valid (legal or otherwise) arguments?


Have you had any indication at all that the judge is going to rule in your favor?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  I am not going to lose on the merits.


Keep believing that. I hear it helps sometimes.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Have you had any indication at all that the judge is going to rule in your favor?


None whatsoever.  I have already asked for a summary judgment in my favor. I am waiting on that.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Keep believing that. I hear it helps sometimes.


Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies in any given venue.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies in any given venue.


Only in your own mind is that true. Let's see what the judge has to say about it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Only in your own mind is that true. Let's see what the judge has to say about it.


The judiciary has already tossed out scores of frivolous, right-wing suits.  Congratulations.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> The judiciary has already tossed out scores of frivolous, right-wing suits.  Congratulations.


And that has nothing to do with your case, which is a frivolous leftwing suit that will fail. No judge is going to rule that you can collect UC after quitting a job.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> And that has nothing to do with your case, which is a frivolous leftwing suit that will fail. No judge is going to rule that you can collect UC after quitting a job.


It merely has to do with your right-wing Opinions you are trying to falsely pass off as valid arguments.  Those empowered with the judicial Power don't have to put up with it, unlike those of us here on debate threads.


----------



## P@triot

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. Low taxes. Low regulations. Maximum liberty. Traditional values.


> In fact, traditional American values and achieving the American financial dream appear to be linked.











						1 in 10 US Households in 2019 Worth More Than $1.3 Million
					

People who study, work, marry, buy a home, and live past retirement age tend to be wealthier than people who do not.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## beautress

danielpalos said:


> It merely has to do with your right-wing Opinions you are trying to falsely pass off as valid arguments.  Those empowered with the judicial Power don't have to put up with it, unlike those of us here on debate threads.


Tch, tch, tch. Projecting your party's flaws onto the innocent again. Republicans didn't start this fire.
​And for your edification, the true:
​


----------



## Uncensored2008

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. Low taxes. Low regulations. Maximum liberty. Traditional values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 in 10 US Households in 2019 Worth More Than $1.3 Million
> 
> 
> People who study, work, marry, buy a home, and live past retirement age tend to be wealthier than people who do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com



Democrats don't want prosperity - democrats want POWER.


----------



## beautress

Uncensored2008 said:


> Democrats don't want prosperity - democrats want POWER.


Not only that, but when Democrats get power, they and nobody else has prosperity. That's what their system is all about. Unfortunately, they turned their back on the middle class. But they won at being never Trumpers by lying, lying, and more lying. And they're hooked on -- you guessed it -- lying.


----------



## jc456

beautress said:


> Not only that, but when Democrats get power, they and nobody else has prosperity. That's what their system is all about. Unfortunately, they turned their back on the middle class. But they won at being never Trumpers by lying, lying, and more lying. And they're hooked on -- you guessed it -- lying.


they are a monarchy


----------



## Uncensored2008

beautress said:


> Not only that, but when Democrats get power, they and nobody else has prosperity. That's what their system is all about. Unfortunately, they turned their back on the middle class. But they won at being never Trumpers by lying, lying, and more lying. And they're hooked on -- you guessed it -- lying.



Keeping the greater part of the populace in poverty, near starvation, makes them easy to control.

The population is focused on basic survival, not ideals such as liberty. Such a populace will not resist tyrants as they are concerned with simply eating and having a roof over their heads.

This is how the democrats operate. This is why they create poverty and misery. Deprivation is a tool they use to maintain power.

We have to always remember that democrats harbor ill-will towards not just the nation, but towards all people. They seek to rule and everything they do is designed to foment their absolute and totalitarian power.

The tyrants who are democrats currently operate under fascism. But Communist, Fascist, Monarchist, Imperialist - it's all the same. The elite ruling over the masses.

ONLY Capitalism has ever provided a system where the masses could thrive, and that is by design.

Atrocities are not a byproduct of tyranny, they are a central feature. It's not that democrats will commit atrocities due to abuse of power - atrocities are the planned outcome.


----------



## beautress

midcan5 said:


> When people marvel at the rise of Donald Trump, they forget the republican base, a base so partisan they believe wrong things on top of wrong things so long as the wrong things fall in line with their brainwashing. Any need to mention any?  Nah, all you need to do is think for a moment or listen to their talk. You know the words.
> 
> Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines-Mostly Fiction!


Sheeze Louise, midcan5, we can't help it if we're perfect!


----------



## jc456

Uncensored2008 said:


> Keeping the greater part of the populace in poverty, near starvation, makes them easy to control.
> 
> The population is focused on basic survival, not ideals such as liberty. Such a populace will not resist tyrants as they are concerned with simply eating and having a roof over their heads.
> 
> This is how the democrats operate. This is why they create poverty and misery. Deprivation is a tool they use to maintain power.
> 
> We have to always remember that democrats harbor ill-will towards not just the nation, but towards all people. They seek to rule and everything they do is designed to foment their absolute and totalitarian power.
> 
> The tyrants who are democrats currently operate under fascism. But Communist, Fascist, Monarchist, Imperialist - it's all the same. The elite ruling over the masses.
> 
> ONLY Capitalism has ever provided a system where the masses could thrive, and that is by design.
> 
> Atrocities are not a byproduct of tyranny, they are a central feature. It's not that democrats will commit atrocities due to abuse of power - atrocities are the planned outcome.


demofks don't want to be challenged.


----------



## P@triot

beautress said:


> And for your edification, the true:
> ​


The “Inflation Reduction Act”. We are _truly_ living Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## beautress

jc456 said:


> they are a monarchy


With their leader being a headless horseman, "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!


----------



## beautress

Uncensored2008 said:


> Keeping the greater part of the populace in poverty, near starvation, makes them easy to control.
> 
> The population is focused on basic survival, not ideals such as liberty. Such a populace will not resist tyrants as they are concerned with simply eating and having a roof over their heads.
> 
> This is how the democrats operate. This is why they create poverty and misery. Deprivation is a tool they use to maintain power.
> 
> We have to always remember that democrats harbor ill-will towards not just the nation, but towards all people. They seek to rule and everything they do is designed to foment their absolute and totalitarian power.
> 
> The tyrants who are democrats currently operate under fascism. But Communist, Fascist, Monarchist, Imperialist - it's all the same. The elite ruling over the masses.
> 
> ONLY Capitalism has ever provided a system where the masses could thrive, and that is by design.
> 
> Atrocities are not a byproduct of tyranny, they are a central feature. It's not that democrats will commit atrocities due to abuse of power - atrocities are the planned outcome.


We didn't have this kind of trouble when men had leadership roles. Now we have overbearing women like Nancy Pelosi how-daring the world if they didn't satisfy her each and every chiseling whim. I'm against a sex-domineering state. The Liz Cheney arrogant, puerile smear of the President tore communities in half in small town Wyoming, that finally magnified the real problem, which was betrayal of so many community spirited voters, angered when the very one they picked to bring the country together instead went after President Trump for unknown reasons within that family, and the people of the Equality State want things to be patched up and put to rest. Instead of listening to the wisdom of the people, Ms. Cheney has vowed to take Trump completely down. In my signature there is a word of wisdom from the Bible which warns chosen leaders to help their people, and it goes like this: When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  Proverbs 29:2 May people in the Congress benefit their own people from this day forward. My vespers tonight are to never again have revengeful human beings in either house of Congress, and may the revenge artists stay away from behavior that destroys America. We have to make this country return to the principles of equality, brotherhood, and strength. No one else is going to do that for us.  Goodnight. Time to pray for our nation to rise up and do the right thing.


----------



## jc456

beautress said:


> We didn't have this kind of trouble when men had leadership roles. Now we have overbearing women like Nancy Pelosi how-daring the world if they didn't satisfy her each and every chiseling whim. I'm against a sex-domineering state. The Liz Cheney arrogant, puerile smear of the President tore communities in half in small town Wyoming, that finally magnified the real problem, which was betrayal of so many community spirited voters, angered when the very one they picked to bring the country together instead went after President Trump for unknown reasons within that family, and the people of the Equality State want things to be patched up and put to rest. Instead of listening to the wisdom of the people, Ms. Cheney has vowed to take Trump completely down. In my signature there is a word of wisdom from the Bible which warns chosen leaders to help their people, and it goes like this: When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  Proverbs 29:2 May people in the Congress benefit their own people from this day forward. My vespers tonight are to never again have revengeful human beings in either house of Congress, and may the revenge artists stay away from behavior that destroys America. We have to make this country return to the principles of equality, brotherhood, and strength. No one else is going to do that for us.  Goodnight. Time to pray for our nation to rise up and do the right thing.


It’s foreign money


----------



## beautress

jc456 said:


> It’s foreign money


Well, didn't they mommies teach them that love is greater than hate and greed?  The first families who set foot on Chesapeake Bay and Plymouth Rock paid with their lives if they didn't get along with their hosts, the American Indians. Several colonies in the southerly ports were gone by the time their ships returned from England or European ports. They learned from the grisly findings the need in the new world was diplomacy, building tools and superior weaponry along with knowledge of fear-inspiring war and peace thereafter. The people benefitted best when a man of God was there to bring them hope and justice. Most tribal people were thrilled when the colonists gave them small consessions such as candles, sparkling beads, baked desserts, candies, and other foreign small delights they'd never seen before. In return, the Indians became friends with knowledge of where and when to find life-sustaining game. And one milk cow could provide the native tribe commodities for making pudding. Soon, the successful diplomats were including them in their Christian services, not to mention lifelong friendships bonded in the love of the Lord. In spite of what people think today, Christianity taught give and take, and when all else fails, giving and honorable justice gave peace between men who chose to get along in the New World with its challenges and joys for both sides.

Have we forgotten that kindness begets kindness?  We need to learn what the very first European americans learned early on--that honey brings on money, and bitterness brings on death. Those who lived in the sweetness and simplicity of faith were treasured by most Native Americans. Undiplomatic words or deeds could bring on a genocidal war in which numerous European-born Americans lost everything, including life itself.

Their faith in God saved their lives and enabled them to prosper in ways of the heart to care for their earlier savage hosts. Our God, our help in ages past will prosper our children. Gauging each other with secrets born of greed or other evil brings on grief. Our nation must remember the lessons we learned as colonists in a strange land. And we must thwart modern evils such as drugs that kill our children and their friends and we must rekindle our hard-earned Constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, respect for different religions that prosper kindness and love, not hatred and isolation of those who have not accepted God's laws summarized not only by the Ten Commandments, but our Savior's condensation of all laws into two precepts--Love the Lord God with all our hearts, and love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We also need to put to sleep all our errors and let brotherly love rule. Our failure to do that in this generation is as dangerous as the genocide of peaceful people. We have to do better. We just have to do better. Peace and the Kingdom of God are within you, and when you benefit others, you are twice repaid, once on earth, and again in heaven, when the body corrupts and the spirit prospers. May God guide us and bless us. The enemy is despair. So be cheerful!


----------



## Uncensored2008

beautress said:


> We didn't have this kind of trouble when men had leadership roles. Now we have overbearing women like Nancy Pelosi how-daring the world if they didn't satisfy her each and every chiseling whim. I'm against a sex-domineering state. The Liz Cheney arrogant, puerile smear of the President tore communities in half in small town Wyoming, that finally magnified the real problem, which was betrayal of so many community spirited voters, angered when the very one they picked to bring the country together instead went after President Trump for unknown reasons within that family, and the people of the Equality State want things to be patched up and put to rest. Instead of listening to the wisdom of the people, Ms. Cheney has vowed to take Trump completely down. In my signature there is a word of wisdom from the Bible which warns chosen leaders to help their people, and it goes like this: When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.  Proverbs 29:2 May people in the Congress benefit their own people from this day forward. My vespers tonight are to never again have revengeful human beings in either house of Congress, and may the revenge artists stay away from behavior that destroys America. We have to make this country return to the principles of equality, brotherhood, and strength. No one else is going to do that for us.  Goodnight. Time to pray for our nation to rise up and do the right thing.



Thank you for your kind words.

But I don't agree.

I believe retribution is demanded here, that we MUST make the fascists pay. The out of control acts we see are because we have let them get away with so much.

The outlaw speech on campuses, and we retreat.  They create places where whites are prohibited to set foot in, and we retreat. They groom our children in public schools, we retreat. They take political prisoners for protesting them, we retreat.

In California, Kim Jong Newsom outlawed Christian churches, and they fought back. It took two years, but the assault on freedom of religion was driven back.

The lesson is we must fight, and we must MAKE THEM PAY.


----------



## beautress

Uncensored2008 said:


> Thank you for your kind words.
> 
> But I don't agree.
> 
> I believe retribution is demanded here, that we MUST make the fascists pay. The out of control acts we see are because we have let them get away with so much.
> 
> The outlaw speech on campuses, and we retreat.  They create places where whites are prohibited to set foot in, and we retreat. They groom our children in public schools, we retreat. They take political prisoners for protesting them, we retreat.
> 
> In California, Kim Jong Newsom outlawed Christian churches, and they fought back. It took two years, but the assault on freedom of religion was driven back.
> 
> The lesson is we must fight, and we must MAKE THEM PAY.


You make very good sense to me, Uncensored2008. Thank you for your perspective. King David had a similar view about making enemies pay for their kills against the people in his country. I respect that.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know what works. Low taxes. Low regulations. Maximum liberty. Traditional values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 in 10 US Households in 2019 Worth More Than $1.3 Million
> 
> 
> People who study, work, marry, buy a home, and live past retirement age tend to be wealthier than people who do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


So, why are most red states shitholes?


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> So, why are most red states shitholes?



They're not.

Why are you Nazis such fucking liars?


----------



## beautress

otto105 said:


> So, why are most red states shitholes?


Should I consider trading in my 22 for an AR-15?


----------



## beautress

Uncensored2008 said:


> They're not.
> 
> Why are you Nazis such fucking liars?


Now, my dear friend, you know how the brownshirters on the left give themselves exclusives on calling their little self-serving prevarications verity, and they've _never_ appreciated God's country.


----------



## Uncensored2008

beautress said:


> Should I consider trading in my 22 for an AR-15?



I don't think most gun shops do trade ins. 

I was never a big fan of the AR-15, I don't like the pistol grip style. I've shot rifles my entire life and prefer a rifle profile.

I love the Mini-14 for a couple of reasons. First, I grew up with Rugar 10-22, the Mini-14 is very similar, so very comfortable to me.  Secondly the wooden stock adds weight and makes it more stable when shooting.


----------



## P@triot

We're destined to win. We're on the right side of decency, we're on the right side of morality, and we're on the right side of history...








						Investment Fund Boycotts These 29 Companies Hostile to Conservative Values
					

Ridgeline Research is offering an investment option that boycotts 29 companies hostile to conservatives.




					www.dailysignal.com


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> We're destined to win. We're on the right side of decency, we're on the right side of morality, and we're on the right side of history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Investment Fund Boycotts These 29 Companies Hostile to Conservative Values
> 
> 
> Ridgeline Research is offering an investment option that boycotts 29 companies hostile to conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailysignal.com


No, no you’re not.


You’re on a losing white privileged fuckup decline.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> No, no you’re not.
> 
> 
> You’re on a losing white privileged fuckup decline.



Well Seig Heil indeed little otter.

You'll exterminate Der Juden, the hated whites, will you?


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Well Seig Heil indeed little otter.
> 
> You'll exterminate Der Juden, the hated whites, will you?


Sorry, don’t respond to 4chan posts.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> You’re on a losing white privileged fuckup decline.


"White privilege" 

The left doesn't even try to mask their racism anymore. They are so damn proud to be deeply racist. All the ignorant left sees is skin color and nothing else.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Sorry, don’t respond to 4chan posts.


No...you don't respond to them...you just create them.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Well Seig Heil indeed little otter.
> 
> You'll exterminate Der Juden, the hated whites, will you?


Boi, can we just bury the 1940’s fascist regime..


Wait, the former 1-term fuckup just hosted two of them at his golf resort house.


Move On


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Boi, can we just bury the 1940’s fascist regime..



We plan to.

Or maybe we'll just leave you in the fields to feed the crows.



otto105 said:


> Wait, the former 1-term fuckup just hosted two of them at his golf resort house.
> 
> 
> Move On



Is Kanye West a "White Supremacist?"

One of your fellow Nazis says "yes,"


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> We plan to.
> 
> Or maybe we'll just leave you in the fields to feed the crows.
> 
> 
> 
> Is Kanye West a "White Supremacist?"
> 
> One of your fellow Nazis says "yes,"


Boi, you must dream of being an SS officer in Germany prior to our anti fascist Army Marching a Greatest Grneratiin on your fantasies.


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> "White privilege"
> 
> The left doesn't even try to mask their racism anymore. They are so damn proud to be deeply racist. All the ignorant left sees is skin color and nothing else.


Awwww, have to answer for that white privilege make you sad…


Don’t fucking care boi.


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Boi, you must dream of being an SS officer in Germany prior to our anti fascist Army Marching a Greatest Grneratiin on your fantasies.



We kicked your Nazi asses and vowed Never again - but here you are again. We'll have to do the same as we did in 1945 to you Nazi vermin.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Boi, can we just bury the 1940’s fascist regime..


Unfortunately, no. Democrats in America have embraced fascism in its purest form. There is an entire thread about it here on USMB.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Boi, you must dream of being an SS officer in Germany prior to our anti fascist Army Marching a Greatest Grneratiin on your fantasies.


Only a fascist would use violence to silence opposition and then use propaganda to declare that that makes them the “anti fascists”


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Awwww, have to answer for that white privilege make you sad…


I don’t “answer” to soy boi beta-males such as yourself, snowflake 


otto105 said:


> Don’t fucking care boi.


Oh, we all know that you don’t care about trying to hide your blatant racism. And we appreciate that! Makes it easier to identify you piece of shit racists.


----------



## Cellblock2429

otto105 said:


> Boi, can we just bury the 1940’s fascist regime..
> 
> 
> Wait, the former 1-term fuckup just hosted two of them at his golf resort house.
> 
> 
> Move On


/——-/ Nah, we ain’t moving on.  BTW democRATs own the anti-Semite title.





						The Democrats' boycott of Netanyahu
					

On Tuesday, Politico reported that the Democrats in Congress were considering skipping Israeli orime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress in March.  The reason why the speech is controversial is because O...




					www.americanthinker.com


----------



## Cellblock2429

otto105 said:


> Boi, can we just bury the 1940’s fascist regime..
> 
> 
> Wait, the former 1-term fuckup just hosted two of them at his golf resort house.
> 
> 
> Move On


/——-/ Nah, we’re in your face.


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> They're not.
> 
> Why are you Nazis such fucking liars?


Tulsa?

Come on boi


----------



## Uncensored2008

otto105 said:


> Tulsa?



Never been there

G.T. Bynum, a DEMOCRAT is mayor.

You just get dumber and dumber.

It's mixing the crack with fentanyl that makes you so dumb.

I'm just saying.



otto105 said:


> Come on boi


----------



## otto105

Uncensored2008 said:


> Never been there
> 
> G.T. Bynum, a DEMOCRAT is mayor.
> 
> You just get dumber and dumber.
> 
> It's mixing the crack with fentanyl that makes you so dumb.
> 
> I'm just saying.


So, you don’t know George Theron Bynum IV.

Want to try again.



Boi


----------

