Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

be honest. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. Why not work with it instead of blaming Labor.

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

So you continue to provide no proof. Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

it is a self-evident truth. capitalism and self-selection must be more efficient than means testing. we should be decreasing the need for more expensive means testing.

Sorry, I don't understand your jibberish or how it applies to what I posted.

it is easier and simpler to apply for unemployment compensation than it is to apply for means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

cheaper than welfare; and, if you don't want to pay more in taxes, employ more people to lower your tax burden.

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

Again, no answer. Thank you.

more people circulating more capital means more in local taxes and more in local demand.

So you have a man that makes $50000, and you take $25000 and give it to another man that is not working, so now two men have $25000 how does that circulate more money into the economy?

that is not how it works. i am advocating for a general tax not a direct tax on employers.

 

[danielpalos]

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

Got nothing, thanks for admitting you are a fraud, you need to contribute to the general welfare of the country.

just your ignorance. all of the concepts presented by me are valid. You all have no valid rebuttals, only gossip, propaganda, and rhetoric.

How can one rebut pie in the sky thoughts? Please prove your theory with actual data instead of thoughts of a crazy person.

by actually having some understanding of economics. anyone can hearsay and soothsay.

Not understanding your theory here or how it relates to my post, it seems you can't understand posts as you never answer them in context.

you should have some understanding of economics.

 

[Papageorgio]

Be honest, prove your theory, you spout it and still you can’t back it up.

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

So you continue to provide no proof. Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

it is a self-evident truth. capitalism and self-selection must be more efficient than means testing. we should be decreasing the need for more expensive means testing.

Sorry, I don't understand your jibberish or how it applies to what I posted.

it is easier and simpler to apply for unemployment compensation than it is to apply for means testing.

What the hell is "means testing"?

 

[Papageorgio]

Those that work are the ones who are hardest hit by taxes, they aren’t employers, they are hired. So you feel it is okay to hurt them financially in order for lazy people to have the ability to sit home and not contribute to the general welfare of the country?

Now, go ahead and parrot your answer which will have nothing to do with what I posted.

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

Again, no answer. Thank you.

more people circulating more capital means more in local taxes and more in local demand.

So you have a man that makes $50000, and you take $25000 and give it to another man that is not working, so now two men have $25000 how does that circulate more money into the economy?

that is not how it works. i am advocating for a general tax not a direct tax on employers.

What type of tax are you advocating? Please be specific in who you are going to tax.

 

[conserveguy877]

Not only is Crazy Eyes Cortez is bad at math. But she has that to take extra vacations now? All bought by the tax payer expense. Wow!

 

[Papageorgio]

Got nothing, thanks for admitting you are a fraud, you need to contribute to the general welfare of the country.

just your ignorance. all of the concepts presented by me are valid. You all have no valid rebuttals, only gossip, propaganda, and rhetoric.

How can one rebut pie in the sky thoughts? Please prove your theory with actual data instead of thoughts of a crazy person.

by actually having some understanding of economics. anyone can hearsay and soothsay.

Not understanding your theory here or how it relates to my post, it seems you can't understand posts as you never answer them in context.

you should have some understanding of economics.

Can you answer? So far you seem to dance around the questions instead of answering them. Perhaps your understanding is limited and you can't answer, that's okay, I understand.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not only is Crazy Eyes Cortez is bad at math. But she has that to take extra vacations now? All bought by the tax payer expense. Wow!

She seems to have taken on the role of a career politician quite well.

 

[conserveguy877]

Not only is Crazy Eyes Cortez is bad at math. But she has that to take extra vacations now? All bought by the tax payer expense. Wow!

She seems to have taken on the role of a career politician quite well.

And she’s yet to be confirmed. What a circus the house will be starting next month. Get your popcorn ready.

 

[danielpalos]

it is no theory; merely a more efficient application.

So you continue to provide no proof. Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

it is a self-evident truth. capitalism and self-selection must be more efficient than means testing. we should be decreasing the need for more expensive means testing.

Sorry, I don't understand your jibberish or how it applies to what I posted.

it is easier and simpler to apply for unemployment compensation than it is to apply for means testing.

What the hell is "means testing"?

why take my word for it?

Means test - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

special pleading in a vacuum, like usual? The law of large numbers will for us instead of against us when it comes to people paying taxes merely due to circulating more money.

Again, no answer. Thank you.

more people circulating more capital means more in local taxes and more in local demand.

So you have a man that makes $50000, and you take $25000 and give it to another man that is not working, so now two men have $25000 how does that circulate more money into the economy?

that is not how it works. i am advocating for a general tax not a direct tax on employers.

What type of tax are you advocating? Please be specific in who you are going to tax.

Just to launch the program; we could issue junk bonds not junk laws. A general tax on employers seems simplest. It provides some market based incentive to employ Labor, to lower their tax burden.

 

[danielpalos]

just your ignorance. all of the concepts presented by me are valid. You all have no valid rebuttals, only gossip, propaganda, and rhetoric.

How can one rebut pie in the sky thoughts? Please prove your theory with actual data instead of thoughts of a crazy person.

by actually having some understanding of economics. anyone can hearsay and soothsay.

Not understanding your theory here or how it relates to my post, it seems you can't understand posts as you never answer them in context.

you should have some understanding of economics.

Can you answer? So far you seem to dance around the questions instead of answering them. Perhaps your understanding is limited and you can't answer, that's okay, I understand.

the concept is simple. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you continue to provide no proof. Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

it is a self-evident truth. capitalism and self-selection must be more efficient than means testing. we should be decreasing the need for more expensive means testing.

Sorry, I don't understand your jibberish or how it applies to what I posted.

it is easier and simpler to apply for unemployment compensation than it is to apply for means testing.

What the hell is "means testing"?

why take my word for it?

Means test - Wikipedia

I have no problem with means testing what so ever. I also have problem with a person applying for unemployment. Both methods work very well.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, no answer. Thank you.

more people circulating more capital means more in local taxes and more in local demand.

So you have a man that makes $50000, and you take $25000 and give it to another man that is not working, so now two men have $25000 how does that circulate more money into the economy?

that is not how it works. i am advocating for a general tax not a direct tax on employers.

What type of tax are you advocating? Please be specific in who you are going to tax.

Just to launch the program; we could issue junk bonds not junk laws. A general tax on employers seems simplest. It provides some market based incentive to employ Labor, to lower their tax burden.

Nope, small businesses struggle enough as it is, to hit them with additional taxes is cruel and unusual punishment, which is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Paulie]

 

[Papageorgio]

How can one rebut pie in the sky thoughts? Please prove your theory with actual data instead of thoughts of a crazy person.

by actually having some understanding of economics. anyone can hearsay and soothsay.

Not understanding your theory here or how it relates to my post, it seems you can't understand posts as you never answer them in context.

you should have some understanding of economics.

Can you answer? So far you seem to dance around the questions instead of answering them. Perhaps your understanding is limited and you can't answer, that's okay, I understand.

the concept is simple. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

You keep blabbering the same rhetoric without any answers, maybe you could get your teacher to help you communicate.

 

[danielpalos]

more people circulating more capital means more in local taxes and more in local demand.

So you have a man that makes $50000, and you take $25000 and give it to another man that is not working, so now two men have $25000 how does that circulate more money into the economy?

that is not how it works. i am advocating for a general tax not a direct tax on employers.

What type of tax are you advocating? Please be specific in who you are going to tax.

Just to launch the program; we could issue junk bonds not junk laws. A general tax on employers seems simplest. It provides some market based incentive to employ Labor, to lower their tax burden.

Nope, small businesses struggle enough as it is, to hit them with additional taxes is cruel and unusual punishment, which is a violation of the Constitution.

a general tax is less intrusive than any direct tax.

 

[danielpalos]

by actually having some understanding of economics. anyone can hearsay and soothsay.

Not understanding your theory here or how it relates to my post, it seems you can't understand posts as you never answer them in context.

you should have some understanding of economics.

Can you answer? So far you seem to dance around the questions instead of answering them. Perhaps your understanding is limited and you can't answer, that's okay, I understand.

the concept is simple. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

You keep blabbering the same rhetoric without any answers, maybe you could get your teacher to help you communicate.

thank Goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you have a man that makes $50000, and you take $25000 and give it to another man that is not working, so now two men have $25000 how does that circulate more money into the economy?

that is not how it works. i am advocating for a general tax not a direct tax on employers.

What type of tax are you advocating? Please be specific in who you are going to tax.

Just to launch the program; we could issue junk bonds not junk laws. A general tax on employers seems simplest. It provides some market based incentive to employ Labor, to lower their tax burden.

Nope, small businesses struggle enough as it is, to hit them with additional taxes is cruel and unusual punishment, which is a violation of the Constitution.

a general tax is less intrusive than any direct tax.

Depends on who you are taxing.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not understanding your theory here or how it relates to my post, it seems you can't understand posts as you never answer them in context.

you should have some understanding of economics.

Can you answer? So far you seem to dance around the questions instead of answering them. Perhaps your understanding is limited and you can't answer, that's okay, I understand.

the concept is simple. compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

You keep blabbering the same rhetoric without any answers, maybe you could get your teacher to help you communicate.

thank Goodness for our doctrine of separation of powers.

Again, no answers, thanks for the laughs. Pie in the sky never tastes as good as pie at home.