Is the Bern not typical of most wealth haters?

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it's your kind that doesn't understand.

We've spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty, yet have little to show for it.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for the day, and he will be back at your door looking for more fish tomorrow.

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wrong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

 

[Dovahkiin]

We have something to show for it.

More poverty.

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

 

[initforme]

Well perhaps there are jobs Americans won't do. Thosejobsmay be unfilled because they are undesirable. I didn't stint in the godforsaken american rat race. I saved enuff and retired comfortably. I don't miss work one iota. I like the quiet solitude now. Don't need the insanity of the svrewef up work world. When I think back, I worked a ton. Did what I did make a difference? Nope. I helped build houses for people. Am I proud of that? Not really. Buy I did it. Not really a way to live though, working a lot of hours.

 

[initforme]

If it takes work to provide you with a sense of pride, you are a low thinker.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The solution to poverty is pretty simple.

What causes poverty? Having no money.
What is the solution to poverty? Getting money.
How does one get money? Get a job and work hard.

Of course with earning money, one has to be responsible enough to handle it. Don't have any children until you are financially stable enough to support those kids. Don't spend money carelessly. You don't need the most premium package on your cell phone or on your cable television. Don't buy any pets. Feed yourself before you feed some dumb animal.

What I would really like to know from liberals is how is this simple solution not being exercised by a large group of our citizens? The answer of course is that a large group of our citizens are lazy, irresponsible, or both.

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I agree, poverty is caused by a lack of dollars.
Your solution makes sense.
Yes, I agree, people can get out of poverty by earning dollars at a job.
But here's the problem:
The government believes, I shit you not, that we can not drop below a certain unemployment rate or accelerated inflation will occur. This is known as NAIRU, and it's 100% false, but it's affected us for decades. We need a real solution to help the millions of workers stuck in part time jobs, the people with a criminal record who can't get hired, the people who have given up, the millions stuck in low wage jobs without proper training. We need a job guarantee.

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

 

[Dovahkiin]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well perhaps there are jobs Americans won't do. Thosejobsmay be unfilled because they are undesirable. I didn't stint in the godforsaken american rat race. I saved enuff and retired comfortably. I don't miss work one iota. I like the quiet solitude now. Don't need the insanity of the svrewef up work world. When I think back, I worked a ton. Did what I did make a difference? Nope. I helped build houses for people. Am I proud of that? Not really. Buy I did it. Not really a way to live though, working a lot of hours.

Oh, the jobs are undesirable? Well excuse me!!!!!

Think I want to leave a nice warm bed every morning, go out into the snow, and drive a tractor-trailer in this part of the country? Of course not. I want to be in bed too. I want to watch my big-screen all day and play on the internet with others here. I want to be home just as much as anybody else.

But while I struggle to go to work everyday, others who are much more physically advantaged than me are home eating Fruit Loops every morning and looking out their windows watching assholes like me rush to work to support them.

Sorry if I don't pity them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

Well if people don't quit eating, how does that cut down on food purchases?

People may buy less expensive food than they did before, but they are still buying food, and better food is no better for the economy than worse food.

It's like when Nancy Piglosi told people that welfare and unemployment is good for the economy. Every time a liberal issue comes up, it's not because of vote buying, it's good for society.

I don't buy it. If unemployment is good for the economy, then why don't we all go on unemployment and really get the economy going again? Why don't we raise minimum wage to $25.00 per hour? Why don't we give everybody free healthcare?

It doesn't work, but liberal lies do.

 

[initforme]

I did my time in the workforce. While I see your point I just don't get upset by the situation. No matter how I vote it won't make any difference whatsoever. The wealthy one the nation. The rest of us won't get ahead. I earned snuff to tretire and raise my four kids. Now I love my medicare and social security as well as my pension.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If it takes work to provide you with a sense of pride, you are a low thinker.

Just the opposite: it takes pride to encourage you to go to work and not suck taxpayer dollars from those that do work.

 

[initforme]

While I worked a ton, it provided me with no real pride but it was a means to a paycheck. What a worker must do is get trained so they are needed, then use that against his employer. Keep them on edge that you may walk out at any time for a better employer.

 

[Dovahkiin]

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

Well if people don't quit eating, how does that cut down on food purchases?

People may buy less expensive food than they did before, but they are still buying food, and better food is no better for the economy than worse food.

It's like when Nancy Piglosi told people that welfare and unemployment is good for the economy. Every time a liberal issue comes up, it's not because of vote buying, it's good for society.

I don't buy it. If unemployment is good for the economy, then why don't we all go on unemployment and really get the economy going again? Why don't we raise minimum wage to $25.00 per hour? Why don't we give everybody free healthcare?

It doesn't work, but liberal lies do.

People cut back and buy less food, this cuts down on food purchases. This is basic stuff.
Unemployment is horrible for the economy, it's worse then inflation, which is why I advocate for a job guarantee and suspending payroll taxes to guarantee a job to anybody willing to work. a 25.00 minimum wage is unrealistic, don't go for the extreme.

 

[9aces]

Okay, consider it done. If you want proper training, find a school that will give you that training and sign up for courses.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.

Rush Limbaugh often points out, that if you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

There are all kinds of jobs out there that industry can't find workers for. Take my profession for example: I'm a truck driver, and this year alone, it's reported that we will need 60,000 new drivers that employers can't find. It's so to the point they are hiring foreigners to come here and do the jobs Americans won't do.

Okay, you can't just jump into a tractor-trailer with no training and start driving. You need training, you need experience, you need to get your CDL license. Well, some companies will not only train and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn.

And as you can imagine, I spend my day in many industrial sites. Those sites are loaded with HELP WANTED signs. They too can't find people to work because if you go back there a few months later, those signs are still posted.

So what is the solution? Stop paying people not to work. If you're hungry enough, you'll find a way to earn money, believe me.

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

 

[9aces]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

You know I've seen some monumentally stupid things on this board. That's one of the dumbest.

A dollar has value, because money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

Taxes are not trade, they are confiscation by force. Brute force is the only weapon government wields, and it wields it very well.

 

[Dovahkiin]

It's not as simple as "finding a school." On the macro level, things are not so simple.
Look, the government maintains unemployment/SNAP because they purposefully won't let unemployment go below a certain number thanks to NAIRU'S now false assumption that accelerating inflation will occur. We need a job guarantee.

Wong. Government maintains social programs for vote buying purposes. The more government dependents--the more likely Democrat voters.

Do you really think any of those Democrats give a shit if you have health insurance or not? Of course they don't. Commie Care was designed for one specific purpose: to create as many government dependents as possible.

It seemed to work too. The White House brags that they have 14 million people that signed up for Commie Care. Only a liberal would celebrate 14 million more government dependents.

And mark my words here and now. Once the nominees are selected and we begin the presidential debates, watch how the Democrats will bring up the ACA and try to scare people that Republicans will take that away from them. They do it every presidential election. They highlight social programs and tell people Republicans will cut them off.

Literally false. You're wrong on this one.
Let's take SNAP, for example.
SNAP is what is called an "automatic stabilizer."
It helps prevent a large drop in aggregate demand if the economy goes south.
When the economy is doing well, it creates a ceiling in aggregate demand.
The Macroeconomic purpose of SNAP is to prevent a large drop in spending on food by consumers if the economy tanks.
This is automatic, there's a reason more people went on SNAP when the recent recession hit.
When the economy recesses, jobs are lost and hours are cut, SNAP helps people that this happens to. When so many jobs are part time and low wage, SNAP is essential. You're right about one thing, the government maintains unemployment insurance because of NAIRU, they will literally not allow "full employment." It's been this way since the neoliberal garbage that sucked in both parties, the dems falling for it in the 90's.

I guess you didn't read my topic on what Maine did with their SNAP's program.

What they did is make people who are physically capable of working and have no children work a job at least 20 hours per week, or volunteer 24 hours a month, or be in vocational training for work. Otherwise, you will be cut off from the SNAP's program. I bet you'll never guess what happened unless you Google it.

That's right, a majority of them dropped out of the program. It seems these hungery people weren't that hungry after all. OR!!!! They never needed food stamps in the first place. It's just that it's there for free, so why not take advantage of it?

And BTW, nobody quits eating because they work low wages or part-time. We all have to eat and will do so with or without taxpayers buying our food for us. It has nothing to do with economics; that's excuse making by the Democrats.

You're wrong on this. The macroeconomic purpose stands strong. SNAP is an automatic stabilizer. When you cut off someone from SNAP who is ALREADY WORKING or gets thrown out of a job during a downturn, they will cut back on spending. This will result in a drop in aggregate demand for food, which harms businesses that sell food, farmers, etc.. I never said people quit eating. You need to look at the macro, not the micro.

So you're saying you're stupid enough to think giving people money to spend they didn't earn is a good thing somehow?

The macro is every dollar you give them has to be taken from someone who produced it, giving the productive less ability to be productive, or spend, save or invest as they choose. Or fabricated from thin air which devalues every dollar that someone actually produced.

You're on the losing side of the equation.

This entire concept of "earning" isn't relevant to the reality of the economy. Put your bias aside and realize the reality: Your tax dollars aren't going to someone using SNAP, the government simply creates dollars out of thin air. Your tax dollars go nowhere.
Not true, your entire view of the economy is wrong. The government doesn't need federal tax revenue to fund. The government has been fabricating from thin air for decades, I have yet to see the "great collapse."

 

[Dovahkiin]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

You know I've seen some monumentally stupid things on this board. That's one of the dumbest.

A dollar has value, because money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

Taxes are not trade, they are confiscation by force. Brute force is the only weapon government wields, and it wields it very well.

The US dollar has value because the us govt taxes to "collect" the dollar. This creates demand for the us dollar over other currencies.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

The government controls the economy, this is an undeniable fact. Without the government, your dollars, your "money" which they originally added to the economy, is worth nothing. You know why the dollar has value? Taxes.

The government effects the economy and our elected leader should have a more positive effect on the economy, vice running it in the ground like they're doing now.

 

[jillian]

When debating wealth haters, it's always been my contention that they are wealth haters because they've never made a personal investment in their lives. They hate the money the wealthy have less than they hate the perseverance in their personalities that gave them such financial success.

And of course, many on the left who were never even successful working a full-time job feel the same way. They often blame the rich for their demise instead of themselves. These people believe we live in a bubble, and within our bubble, there is only so much money. Therefore, when one has too much, it's the reason others have too little.

That brings us to Bern baby Bern. As it turns out, he never had a steady paycheck until the age of 40, and it was government paychecks at that. While he is totally open about his upbringing in poverty, it seems he never tested private market to try and get a piece of that pie for himself.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

most people don't hate wealth. they hate the growing disparity between haves and have nots.

and no, most people are not socialist so your basic premise is incorrect.

If the government would get out of the way, the working folks could make more money.

riiiiiiiiight.