Is the Bern not typical of most wealth haters?

[Dovahkiin]

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.

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.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

I would love to see your evidence when food stamps are cut, Walmart sales go down. Are you talking about WalMart's grocery items or in general?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/02/food-stamp-cuts-add-to-walmart-s-troubles.htmlrr

 

[Dovahkiin]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

 

[Indeependent]

It's called work ethic disparity. Get it right. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I know the victim card is easier to play but that nasty old reality keeps raising its ugly head.

There is no such thing as wealth disparity. There are lazy deadbeats and there are hard working professionals.

What a load of bullshit.

The vast majority of people want a steady job so they can pay the bills, save money for their kids college and retirement.

This lie that they are too lazy because they arent out working three jobs and taking night courses too is just pure horse shit.

And that angle will hurt the GOP in its stupidity because voters know better.

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

Because pumping coffee and serving pizza doesn't pay as well as driving a truck.
It seems to me that everybody needs to move to South Dakota.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.

That is because inflation is hidden using various accounting tricks, like not calculating in fuel and food costs and 'balancing' price increase by increase in quality, like computers being able to do more calculations.

Anyone that has to put food on the table knows that we are seeing inflation.

Macro economic inflation will only happen if the oil producing nations end their demand for US dollars for their fuel.

Of course we're seeing inflation, I never denied this. It's not the "inflation" prophesied by people like Friedman though. Hell, we're barely utilizing the productive capabilities we have right now. We have millions of people unemployed, resources untapped, etc, etc.. The quality has indeed increased, as has the quality of living. We live longer, have better medical care, etc, etc..
I like to look at the macro, not the micro. Looking at the micro to make policy decisions is a major problem in this nation.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

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.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

I would love to see your evidence when food stamps are cut, Walmart sales go down. Are you talking about WalMart's grocery items or in general?

Link below. You guys shouldn't let rush get you all worked up and po'd at your fellow man though. When enough foreigners come here and are willing to drive trucks for much less than you make, you might be out in the cold too, maybe looking for a hand from the government.
A lot of old guys that lost their jobs to Nafta ended up never getting back on their feet, you know.

Wal-Mart Stores Hurt by Food Stamp Rollbacks

 

[JimBowie1958]

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

Because ...

1. They are trying, but too often the job requirements are rigged for specific guest workers. IF a qualified American completes the interview process and nothing can be found wrong with them, the employer will close the job offer and change the requirements on a new job offer.

2. Many job offers are designed to lure people into applying to see what they want for wages and is a sort of market testing device and no real job is there at all. I have run into several of these. One I called and said I would settle for $60k instead of the advertised $85k and the guy said he would get back with me, and of course he never did. It was a bullshit offer.

3. Many companies are simply listing fake jobs to bolster their stats on how much they offer in pay and use it as defensive stats if the feds start to look in on them, which almost never happens any more.

The FACT is that 75% of entry level STEM jobs are filled by foreign guest workers, even while only about half of American STEM graduates can find jobs. I know one STEM graduate who got top honors, had the highest GPA of her class and still has not been able to find a job in her career field. Another I know was a double major in Aeronautics and I think Mechanical engineering, high GPA and it took him TWO YEARS to find a job in his career.

Meanwhile lying fucks like Microsoft, GE, etc are dumping AMericans and going over to more foreign guest workers because NO ONE IS ENFORCING THE LAWS ANYMORE.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Never

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.

People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

 

[Dovahkiin]

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.

Never

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.

People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:

“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

 

[JimBowie1958]

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

But if US companies actually did have the guest workers laws enforced on them and they started hiring Americans, the Americans that got hired would spend more money, thus stimulating further economic growth and thus more jobs would be created.

IT is a recursive effect.

 

[Dovahkiin]

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

But if US companies actually did have the guest workers laws enforced on them and they started hiring Americans, the Americans that got hired would spend more money, thus stimulating further economic growth and thus more jobs would be created.

IT is a recursive effect.

Indeed, but we can't forget this:
NAIRU - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

Well, Walmart depends on food stamps two ways. When food stamps are cut, Walmart's sales go down. Then of course, a lot of Walmart employees get food stamps and other "free stuff", since Walmart's wages are so low. The Limbaugh students on this board aren't complaining about Walmart being freeloaders though, because that part's not in the Limbaugh course on Economics.

I would love to see your evidence when food stamps are cut, Walmart sales go down. Are you talking about WalMart's grocery items or in general?

Link below. You guys shouldn't let rush get you all worked up and po'd at your fellow man though. When enough foreigners come here and are willing to drive trucks for much less than you make, you might be out in the cold too, maybe looking for a hand from the government.
A lot of old guys that lost their jobs to Nafta ended up never getting back on their feet, you know.

Wal-Mart Stores Hurt by Food Stamp Rollbacks

What this article is about is assumption, not fact.

Walmart recently closed a lot of stores in the US, but also closed many abroad. They site their experiment of mini-stores as the culprit.

In this article, they include "bad weather" along with food stamps, so they really don't know what brought down sales. However, it's well documented that most brick and mortar stores lost sales through the years due to internet sales that replaced store sales.

 

[9aces]

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."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.

Yes, it has been happening. Virtually everything costs more, year after year. Some may decrease over the short term, but the trend for the vast majority of things produced has climbed upwards on cost, even as they were produced more efficiently.

You are either unwilling to see, or blind. There is no 3rd option. I'm betting on unwilling, because it destroys your narrative.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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."

You fool. How much does a pound of bacon cost? Does it cost more because it's harder to produce? No it is not. It is easier to produce, and more efficiently produced.

It costs more because the value of the dollar has been reduced. It takes more of them to pay for that pound of bacon, which generally isn't a pound anymore, it's 12 oz. The 5lb bag of sugar? 4lb.

It's been happening right in front of your eyes, but because it's been a slow, steady progression you haven't even noticed. Except of course when large amounts of fabricated cash are injected into the system. Then you see the little things become a bit bigger. If you're paying attention, and it's obvious you haven't been.

No, it's hardly been happening. Not on the macro.

Yes, it has been happening. Virtually everything costs more, year after year. Some may decrease over the short term, but the trend for the vast majority of things produced has climbed upwards on cost, even as they were produced more efficiently.

You are either unwilling to see, or blind. There is no 3rd option. I'm betting on unwilling, because it destroys your narrative.

Prices have been going up even during the gold standard. The inflation we're experiencing is hardly damaging, in fact, it's minor. People are living longer, productivity is through the roof (although the gains haven't gone to the right place,) etc, etc...

 

[Arianrhod]

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

"Wealth haters"? What are those when they're at home?

 

[Dovahkiin]

There literally aren't enough steady jobs to employ everybody who wants to work.

But if US companies actually did have the guest workers laws enforced on them and they started hiring Americans, the Americans that got hired would spend more money, thus stimulating further economic growth and thus more jobs would be created.

IT is a recursive effect.

Oh, It should be noted that NAIRU is complete hogwash and has led to the purposeful unemployment of millions of people, destroying families, increasing rates of depression, etc..

 

[jasonnfree]

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

Because ...

1. They are trying, but too often the job requirements are rigged for specific guest workers. IF a qualified American completes the interview process and nothing can be found wrong with them, the employer will close the job offer and change the requirements on a new job offer.

2. Many job offers are designed to lure people into applying to see what they want for wages and is a sort of market testing device and no real job is there at all. I have run into several of these. One I called and said I would settle for $60k instead of the advertised $85k and the guy said he would get back with me, and of course he never did. It was a bullshit offer.

3. Many companies are simply listing fake jobs to bolster their stats on how much they offer in pay and use it as defensive stats if the feds start to look in on them, which almost never happens any more.

The FACT is that 75% of entry level STEM jobs are filled by foreign guest workers, even while only about half of American STEM graduates can find jobs. I know one STEM graduate who got top honors, had the highest GPA of her class and still has not been able to find a job in her career field. Another I know was a double major in Aeronautics and I think Mechanical engineering, high GPA and it took him TWO YEARS to find a job in his career.

Meanwhile lying fucks like Microsoft, GE, etc are dumping AMericans and going over to more foreign guest workers because NO ONE IS ENFORCING THE LAWS ANYMORE.

Jobs aren't that easy to get like in the past for another reason. Many employers now take a look at a person's credit report and even their posts on facebook, etc. Things that can knock you out of the running. Since Nafta and offshoring, outsourcing, allowing illegals to be a main part of the job market, and also the hb-1 and other visas being allowed to come here and drive down wages.... It's a little harder these days to get a job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Never

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.

People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:

“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the vast majority of Americans want steady jobs, why are they not taking the jobs that are out there?

Because ...

1. They are trying, but too often the job requirements are rigged for specific guest workers. IF a qualified American completes the interview process and nothing can be found wrong with them, the employer will close the job offer and change the requirements on a new job offer.

2. Many job offers are designed to lure people into applying to see what they want for wages and is a sort of market testing device and no real job is there at all. I have run into several of these. One I called and said I would settle for $60k instead of the advertised $85k and the guy said he would get back with me, and of course he never did. It was a bullshit offer.

3. Many companies are simply listing fake jobs to bolster their stats on how much they offer in pay and use it as defensive stats if the feds start to look in on them, which almost never happens any more.

The FACT is that 75% of entry level STEM jobs are filled by foreign guest workers, even while only about half of American STEM graduates can find jobs. I know one STEM graduate who got top honors, had the highest GPA of her class and still has not been able to find a job in her career field. Another I know was a double major in Aeronautics and I think Mechanical engineering, high GPA and it took him TWO YEARS to find a job in his career.

Meanwhile lying fucks like Microsoft, GE, etc are dumping AMericans and going over to more foreign guest workers because NO ONE IS ENFORCING THE LAWS ANYMORE.

Jobs aren't that easy to get like in the past for another reason. Many employers now take a look at a person's credit report and even their posts on facebook, etc. Things that can knock you out of the running. Since Nafta and offshoring, outsourcing, allowing illegals to be a main part of the job market, and also the hb-1 and other visas being allowed to come here and drive down wages.... It's a little harder these days to get a job.

I think many people agree with you which is why Trump is the leading contender these days.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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.

Never

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.

People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:

“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Never

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.

People cut back and buy less food? Not according to Mrs. DumBama. According to her, we are the fattest country in the world, and this was in the heart of the recession.

But instead of cutting food stamps, DumBama increased them. Then he put an initiative out that forces restaurants to post calorie counts on every item in their menus. She's been obsessed with obesity since she entered the White House.

Do you understand what payroll taxes are? They are Social Security, FICA (which is a fancy name for Social Security), Medicare, state and local taxes. So how do you propose eliminating taxes on programs that are going broke?

The programs aren't "going broke." I want to suspend payroll taxes to get the recovery booming again, more people spending. The government can simply give states dollars to pay for what they need during the suspension. You do realize the payroll taxes, shocking, don't actually "pay" for anything. (Well, the states need to actually raise revenue, the fed doesn't use taxes to pay for federal spending.) This is one of the greatest lies spread today.
Read what FDR said:

“I guess you're right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

The money is literally taken from your paycheck, destroyed, and recorded on a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the "trust fund."

Social Security still has to be funded whether the money is in a lock box or not. Why do you think legislatures are increasing the retirement age and trying to find ways to increase funding such as lifting the ceiling? It's going broke!

And how is the federal government supposed to "give states" anything when we are 19 trillion dollars in debt and growing?

Legislatures know jack shit about the modern economy and still believe we have to collect federal tax revenue to "pay for stuff."
It's all politics and fear mongering to get votes, democrats blame republicans for deficits and it goes the other way.. Meanwhile, deficits aren't harmful at all when we're not at maximum productivity.
Dude, do you know what the debt is?
Tell me that before we continue.

The national debt is like any other debt be it in government or your household.

When you spend more money than you take in, that creates debt.