Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[Brain357]

Spending would go down. That slows the economy. People would have less money.

So, you have no clue what the economic theory behind your idiocy is?

I figured as much.

You claim spending would go down, spending on what? Remember that welfare is transfer payment - no goods or services are created, it is simply the moving of wealth from one bucket to another. So why would spending be affected?

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

 

[Brain357]

Oh so what effect do you see if welfare was cut dramatically now? This should be entertaining.

First off, what proposal are you referencing? Are you taking the hate points off the Soros sites literally? Do you think that the enemies of the party actually plan to starve people to death?

You really are a dumb one.

If welfare were instantly ended, there would no doubt be riots as people panicked due to economic insecurity. Social upheaval traditionally disrupts economic activity.

Now you think that the reduction in transfer payments would cause the economy to crash.

Before I show you why you are foolishly wrong, name what theory the idiocy you repeat from Krugman or whatever leftist moron you are aping, is based on?

Are you not already admitting here it would be bad for the economy?

 

[bripat9643]

Oh so what effect do you see if welfare was cut dramatically now? This should be entertaining.

First off, what proposal are you referencing? Are you taking the hate points off the Soros sites literally? Do you think that the enemies of the party actually plan to starve people to death?

You really are a dumb one.

If welfare were instantly ended, there would no doubt be riots as people panicked due to economic insecurity. Social upheaval traditionally disrupts economic activity.

Now you think that the reduction in transfer payments would cause the economy to crash.

Before I show you why you are foolishly wrong, name what theory the idiocy you repeat from Krugman or whatever leftist moron you are aping, is based on?

Spending would go down. That slows the economy. People would have less money.

In the short term. In the long term wages would go up.

 

[bripat9643]

Spending would go down. That slows the economy. People would have less money.

So, you have no clue what the economic theory behind your idiocy is?

I figured as much.

You claim spending would go down, spending on what? Remember that welfare is transfer payment - no goods or services are created, it is simply the moving of wealth from one bucket to another. So why would spending be affected?

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

The consumers leaving have little money to spend, and they get a lot of it from the taxpayers. Sending them home is net gain for us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's how wages go up. You disagree?

You have the perception of a 3 year old child. It is amusing how little you grasp of how reality works.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you not already admitting here it would be bad for the economy?

Mostly I'm pointing out that you have no grasp at all as to how an economy works. You clumsily spew badly distorted Keynesian ideas that you read from leftists websites, which you have no clue as to what they mean.

An abrupt stop to social welfare would create civil unrest, which is bad for an economy. This is not an economic principle, but a political one. You truly have no idea what you are talking about, and no understanding of the subject at hand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The consumers leaving have little money to spend, and they get a lot of it from the taxpayers. Sending them home is net gain for us.

Particular when you consider that illegals send about 60% of their wages back to Mexico. They are actually draining capital from the market.

 

[bripat9643]

The consumers leaving have little money to spend, and they get a lot of it from the taxpayers. Sending them home is net gain for us.

Particular when you consider that illegals send about 60% of their wages back to Mexico. They are actually draining capital from the market.

It's hilarious watching these open-borders traitors twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify doing nothing about illegal immigration. You have to be a special kind of scumbag to support leaving the borders wide open.

 

[Brain357]

Oh so what effect do you see if welfare was cut dramatically now? This should be entertaining.

First off, what proposal are you referencing? Are you taking the hate points off the Soros sites literally? Do you think that the enemies of the party actually plan to starve people to death?

You really are a dumb one.

If welfare were instantly ended, there would no doubt be riots as people panicked due to economic insecurity. Social upheaval traditionally disrupts economic activity.

Now you think that the reduction in transfer payments would cause the economy to crash.

Before I show you why you are foolishly wrong, name what theory the idiocy you repeat from Krugman or whatever leftist moron you are aping, is based on?

Spending would go down. That slows the economy. People would have less money.

In the short term. In the long term wages would go up.

Why would it increase wages?

 

[Brain357]

That's how wages go up. You disagree?

You have the perception of a 3 year old child. It is amusing how little you grasp of how reality works.

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

 

[bedowin62]

that bottom 40% had it MUCH BETTER when Republicans ran things.

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

the people who made the poorest poor and the richest richer are crying about Walmart

Progressives are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bripat9643]

Oh so what effect do you see if welfare was cut dramatically now? This should be entertaining.

First off, what proposal are you referencing? Are you taking the hate points off the Soros sites literally? Do you think that the enemies of the party actually plan to starve people to death?

You really are a dumb one.

If welfare were instantly ended, there would no doubt be riots as people panicked due to economic insecurity. Social upheaval traditionally disrupts economic activity.

Now you think that the reduction in transfer payments would cause the economy to crash.

Before I show you why you are foolishly wrong, name what theory the idiocy you repeat from Krugman or whatever leftist moron you are aping, is based on?

Spending would go down. That slows the economy. People would have less money.

In the short term. In the long term wages would go up.

Why would it increase wages?

Because foreigners from third world countries are willing to do the same job for a fraction of the wage Americans expect to get. The laws of supply and demand: More supply means a lower price. That's basic economics, which you claim to be an expert on.

 

[Brain357]

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

 

[Brain357]

Oh so what effect do you see if welfare was cut dramatically now? This should be entertaining.

First off, what proposal are you referencing? Are you taking the hate points off the Soros sites literally? Do you think that the enemies of the party actually plan to starve people to death?

You really are a dumb one.

If welfare were instantly ended, there would no doubt be riots as people panicked due to economic insecurity. Social upheaval traditionally disrupts economic activity.

Now you think that the reduction in transfer payments would cause the economy to crash.

Before I show you why you are foolishly wrong, name what theory the idiocy you repeat from Krugman or whatever leftist moron you are aping, is based on?

Spending would go down. That slows the economy. People would have less money.

In the short term. In the long term wages would go up.

Why would it increase wages?

Because foreigners from third world countries are willing to do the same job for a fraction of the wage Americans expect to get. The laws of supply and demand: More supply means a lower price. That's basic economics, which you claim to be an expert on.

That has what to do with cutting welfare?

 

[bripat9643]

That's how wages go up. You disagree?

You have the perception of a 3 year old child. It is amusing how little you grasp of how reality works.

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

1. An increase in the ratio of capital to labor.
2. A smaller supply of labor.
3. Greater demand for labor.

 

[Brain357]

Are you not already admitting here it would be bad for the economy?

Mostly I'm pointing out that you have no grasp at all as to how an economy works. You clumsily spew badly distorted Keynesian ideas that you read from leftists websites, which you have no clue as to what they mean.

An abrupt stop to social welfare would create civil unrest, which is bad for an economy. This is not an economic principle, but a political one. You truly have no idea what you are talking about, and no understanding of the subject at hand.

Like I said, cutting welfare now would have a negative effect on the economy. You should have just agreed from the start.

 

[bripat9643]

Consumers would have less to spend. Businesses need customers with money obviously.

Is that how it works??

Let's test your theory, shall we? Take a dollar bill, put it in your left front pocket. How much do you have to spend?

Now take it from the left pocket, and put it in the right, do you have more to spend?

Welfare is simply the taking of capital from one group and giving it to another - mostly government workers, only ten cents on the dollar ever reaches "the needy," most goes to administrative costs. (Simply stated, the real welfare leeches are the social workers and administrators.). Moving money from one pocket to another has no impact on the capital in the market.

The welfare collectors would now have less to spend. They do spend that money at businesses. Those businesses would now have lower sales. That is bad for an economy.

the taxpayers would have more to spend. The amount would more than compensate for the reduction in wefare. Furthermore, productive members of society would be spending the money rather than useless ticks.

 

[Brain357]

That's how wages go up. You disagree?

You have the perception of a 3 year old child. It is amusing how little you grasp of how reality works.

You seem to know nothing of economics. What makes wages go up?

1. An increase in the ratio of capital to labor.
2. A smaller supply of labor.
3. Greater demand for labor.

So as I was saying if there were great jobs going unfilled wages would not be stagnant.