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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.Yes, it is about voluntary transactions. And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
You talk of mutually beneficial trade. But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Yes, the multiplier effect. Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working. And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum. It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it. So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied. So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it. Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Only because you understand nothing about economics. Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Yes, the multiplier effect. Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working. And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum. It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it. So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied. So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it. Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Did you miss my entire post? To tax and redistribute the money costs money. So less gets used in the multiplier effect. Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing. Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.Yeah, you want to make that the case. But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker. Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market. Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market. You have no right to the earnings of another.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Yes, the multiplier effect. Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working. And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum. It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it. So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied. So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it. Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Did you miss my entire post? To tax and redistribute the money costs money. So less gets used in the multiplier effect. Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing. Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
daniel is a special needs USMB poster. You are way over his head.
simply because You say so?lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. frivolous stories is all they have.
Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Yes, the multiplier effect. Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working. And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum. It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it. So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied. So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it. Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Did you miss my entire post? To tax and redistribute the money costs money. So less gets used in the multiplier effect. Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing. Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
I have given valid arguments. You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
And it is you who needs a valid argument. A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
he doesn't get paid a market wage but compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
And you, the employee, get the exact same thing without getting paid if you quit or are fired for breaking the rules or laws. So it is already equal protection under the law.
Men have arguments not just gossip.The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.Buying more tents for Americans?
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
daniel is a special needs USMB poster. You are way over his head.
simply because You say so?lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?Yes, the multiplier effect. Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working. And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum. It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it. So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied. So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it. Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Did you miss my entire post? To tax and redistribute the money costs money. So less gets used in the multiplier effect. Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing. Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
I have given valid arguments. You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
And it is you who needs a valid argument. A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment? Can a bible be right. Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?
he doesn't get paid a market wage but compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
And you, the employee, get the exact same thing without getting paid if you quit or are fired for breaking the rules or laws. So it is already equal protection under the law.
Men have arguments not just gossip.The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
daniel is a special needs USMB poster. You are way over his head.
no, that is your game. it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.simply because You say so?lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.LOL. did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
Did you miss my entire post? To tax and redistribute the money costs money. So less gets used in the multiplier effect. Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing. Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
I have given valid arguments. You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
And it is you who needs a valid argument. A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
No, that is your game. YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
lol. employment is at the will of either party not wage-slavery.Men have arguments not just gossip.The law is employment at the will of either party. That is what employers get.what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will. appeals to ignorance is all you have.Absolute nonsense. I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap. I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer. That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law. If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
What equal protection do employers get? You get an income without working. What do they get?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
daniel is a special needs USMB poster. You are way over his head.
And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic. You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play. Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?
Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
no, that is your game. it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.simply because You say so?lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.Did you miss my entire post? To tax and redistribute the money costs money. So less gets used in the multiplier effect. Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing. Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
I have given valid arguments. You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
And it is you who needs a valid argument. A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
No, that is your game. YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
no, that is your game. it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.simply because You say so?lol. you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
I have given valid arguments. You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
And it is you who needs a valid argument. A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
No, that is your game. YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument? You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice? What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries? Is that what you call justice?
