Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[danielpalos]

But the changes necessary to make it what you want is just recreating welfare.

That is you assuming that conclusion by resorting to fallacy. Means testing results in a lower multiplier.

 

[Papageorgio]

Right-wingers are that economically ignorant. Doubling economic activity and improving the efficiency of our economy must accomplish something. And, that is just the economic part not the civil (social) part.

This coming from an idiot that thinks watching a youtube video makes you smarter than a person that has 20 plus years experience in the field. Talk about ignorant!

 

[danielpalos]

This coming from an idiot that thinks watching a youtube video makes you smarter than a person that has 20 plus years experience in the field. Talk about ignorant!

Other than cost, why do you believe solving simple poverty in our Republic on an at-will in our at-will employment States would be Bad and not Good?

 

[Papageorgio]

Other than cost, why do you believe solving simple poverty in our Republic on an at-will in our at-will employment States would be Bad and not Good?

I told you, I am ready to get my compensation for not working. My wife and I both plan on taking your $15 an hour a piece and work into our 90's. What is troubling is you don't want people like myself enjoying your idea, just only a few select, that doesn't seem equal to me.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is you assuming that conclusion by resorting to fallacy. Means testing results in a lower multiplier.

It is not the means testing that lowers the multiplier. It is the source of the funding.

 

[WinterBorn]

Other than cost, why do you believe solving simple poverty in our Republic on an at-will in our at-will employment States would be Bad and not Good?

Cost is the biggest reason. By your program wishes, anyone who is not working can get $31,200.00 per year for free.

I am not working. I am doing fine living on what I saved and what I invested in my 401k. But why not add an additional $31k to my annual income. And since you claim there is no means testing and no limit to how long you draw it, I could get that money for the rest of my life.

 

[WinterBorn]

I told you, I am ready to get my compensation for not working. My wife and I both plan on taking your $15 an hour a piece and work into our 90's. What is troubling is you don't want people like myself enjoying your idea, just only a few select, that doesn't seem equal to me.

He claims there will be no means testing, no time limit in which you can draw it, and the only qualification would be not having a job.

Sounds great for us retirees. My girlfriend and I would see an extra $62,400.00 in income per year come into our household. You and your wife would see the same.

 

[danielpalos]

I told you, I am ready to get my compensation for not working. My wife and I both plan on taking your $15 an hour a piece and work into our 90's. What is troubling is you don't want people like myself enjoying your idea, just only a few select, that doesn't seem equal to me.

What if you have to report income from any source?

 

[danielpalos]

It is not the means testing that lowers the multiplier. It is the source of the funding.

It is means testing that lowers the multiplier.

 

[WinterBorn]

What if you have to report income from any source?

Report to whom? You said there would be no means testing.

 

[struth]

I was merely using that for simplicity.

This is the actual Constitutional Law that Any legislated Act or judicial Rule must be repugnant to in Any conflict of of Laws for Legal purposes in our State:

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Using what for simplicity?

You are in Court, so not sure how you are being denied Due Process...

I once again, ask why are you in State Court if you feel the State has no authority here? Why aren't you in Federal Court?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is means testing that lowers the multiplier.

That is nonsense. The source of the funding will have an effect. Means testing will not. It will merely disqualify those who can support themselves.

 

[danielpalos]

Cost is the biggest reason. By your program wishes, anyone who is not working can get $31,200.00 per year for free.

I am not working. I am doing fine living on what I saved and what I invested in my 401k. But why not add an additional $31k to my annual income. And since you claim there is no means testing and no limit to how long you draw it, I could get that money for the rest of my life.

In other words, you prefer to "hate on the Poor" instead of ensuring the equality of equal protection of the laws?

 

[danielpalos]

He claims there will be no means testing, no time limit in which you can draw it, and the only qualification would be not having a job.

Sounds great for us retirees. My girlfriend and I would see an extra $62,400.00 in income per year come into our household. You and your wife would see the same.

Thanks for paying higher taxes for it.

 

[WinterBorn]

In other words, you prefer to "hate on the Poor" instead of ensuring the equality of equal protection of the laws?

I do not hate the poor. I volunteer regularly to help them.

I am simply opposed to ruining a functional program just so you can avoid means testing. And I am opposed to costing the tax payers $2.5 billion.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks for paying higher taxes for it.

But you said that the higher multiplier would result in it being free.

 

[danielpalos]

Using what for simplicity?

You are in Court, so not sure how you are being denied Due Process...

I once again, ask why are you in State Court if you feel the State has no authority here? Why aren't you in Federal Court?

Because they have to demonstrate Contempt of the People first. I have already asked for a summary judgment.

 

[danielpalos]

I do not hate the poor. I volunteer regularly to help them.

I am simply opposed to ruining a functional program just so you can avoid means testing. And I am opposed to costing the tax payers $2.5 billion.

It sounds more like "hate on the Poor". The Law must be this Majestic:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

― Anatole France

 

[danielpalos]

But you said that the higher multiplier would result in it being free.

That is your story, storyteller. General taxation is always to be preferred to direct taxation unless you get "greedy".

 

[WinterBorn]

That is your story, storyteller. General taxation is always to be preferred to direct taxation unless you get "greedy".

I will pay taxes on the extra $31,200 I get annually.

And it is not my story, it is yours. You are the one who has been claiming the 2.0 multiplier means the $2.5 billion would not cost anything.