Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.
and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.
Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
the right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
You are completely correct by the way.
Palin was not uplifted and educated by the Republican party in global affairs. Repub establishment caused many tea party losses. And stole elections from their own. Palin may even be globalist also. But we know what McCain was.What did Palin get you?yup
just like Democrats were afraid of Palin in 2008
If you had a clue you would be almost half informedthe right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.
Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
You are completely correct by the way.
Perjury against the People!
even women can gossip. Men have arguments.If you had a clue you would be almost half informedthe right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
You are completely correct by the way.
Perjury against the People!
I am sorry then that I called you male. I will remember your gender if I bother to talk with you again.even women can gossip. Men have arguments.If you had a clue you would be almost half informedthe right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?
Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
You are completely correct by the way.
Perjury against the People!
nothing but gossip, dear? wo-men are equal to You.I am sorry then that I called you male. I will remember your gender if I bother to talk with you again.even women can gossip. Men have arguments.If you had a clue you would be almost half informedthe right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
You are completely correct by the way.
Perjury against the People!
Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.
and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.
Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.
you have to understand economics. solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy, makes all of the difference in the world.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.
Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.
What part of compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, do you not understand?Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.
and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.
Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.
Can you answer his question? If your are as superior in economics as you claim then explai it to us in plain simple English instead of just claiming superiority.
What part of compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, do you not understand?Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.
Can you answer his question? If your are as superior in economics as you claim then explai it to us in plain simple English instead of just claiming superiority.
it must be sustainable with any positive multiplier effect. a positive multiplier of 2, is the least we can expect.What part of compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, do you not understand?Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.
We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.
Can you answer his question? If your are as superior in economics as you claim then explai it to us in plain simple English instead of just claiming superiority.
The actual numbers. Going from 465 billion to 3.1 trillion, I don’t see it sustainable, you would need to sustain 1.5 trillion that won’t return, you are claiming over 3.1 trillion for a 465 billion cost, you according to my figures are short by about 1.6 trillion. Show me your figures.
it must be sustainable with any positive multiplier effect. a positive multiplier of 2, is the least we can expect.What part of compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, do you not understand?Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.
Can you answer his question? If your are as superior in economics as you claim then explai it to us in plain simple English instead of just claiming superiority.
The actual numbers. Going from 465 billion to 3.1 trillion, I don’t see it sustainable, you would need to sustain 1.5 trillion that won’t return, you are claiming over 3.1 trillion for a 465 billion cost, you according to my figures are short by about 1.6 trillion. Show me your figures.
it depends on how you spend it. more people spending more money means a positive multiplier effect.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T
Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Because it costs more than it generates. That's always the way it works when you first have to take money out to spend it.
nothing but gossip, dear? wo-men are equal to You.I am sorry then that I called you male. I will remember your gender if I bother to talk with you again.even women can gossip. Men have arguments.If you had a clue you would be almost half informedthe right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.You are arguing with a young child that is convinced he is right. You can explain, show facts and figures, even use crayons and he will never understand nor give up his silly obsession. I have posted many times to this fool and learned the hard way that it is just better to ignore him.
You are completely correct by the way.
Perjury against the People!
Men have arguments.
means what? if labor is making fifteen an hour or being compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.it must be sustainable with any positive multiplier effect. a positive multiplier of 2, is the least we can expect.What part of compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, do you not understand?Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.
Can you answer his question? If your are as superior in economics as you claim then explai it to us in plain simple English instead of just claiming superiority.
The actual numbers. Going from 465 billion to 3.1 trillion, I don’t see it sustainable, you would need to sustain 1.5 trillion that won’t return, you are claiming over 3.1 trillion for a 465 billion cost, you according to my figures are short by about 1.6 trillion. Show me your figures.
You are then short of the sustainability, that is my concern. My issue is the rich don’t pay taxes, they pass it on to the middle class. Obviously you realize that, that would raise the cost of living for those that already support America.
how will that happen with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?it depends on how you spend it. more people spending more money means a positive multiplier effect.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.
Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Because it costs more than it generates. That's always the way it works when you first have to take money out to spend it.
We've tried that with stimulus packages before. There's a slight boost to the economy, followed by debt that never gets paid. It doesn't pay for itself. I know you passionately believe this, but take a serious look at the numbers before you start spouting it again. And get a more recent number of unemployed.
I have arguments, not gossip.nothing but gossip, dear? wo-men are equal to You.I am sorry then that I called you male. I will remember your gender if I bother to talk with you again.even women can gossip. Men have arguments.If you had a clue you would be almost half informedthe right wing has nothing but appeals to ignorance in the public domain. there ought to be a law.
Perjury against the People!
Men have arguments.
Women are equal to you. Think about that for a bit.
how will that happen with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?it depends on how you spend it. more people spending more money means a positive multiplier effect.the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.
Because it costs more than it generates. That's always the way it works when you first have to take money out to spend it.
We've tried that with stimulus packages before. There's a slight boost to the economy, followed by debt that never gets paid. It doesn't pay for itself. I know you passionately believe this, but take a serious look at the numbers before you start spouting it again. And get a more recent number of unemployed.
I have arguments, not gossip.nothing but gossip, dear? wo-men are equal to You.I am sorry then that I called you male. I will remember your gender if I bother to talk with you again.even women can gossip. Men have arguments.If you had a clue you would be almost half informed
Men have arguments.
Women are equal to you. Think about that for a bit.
