The blueprint for prosperity

[P@triot]

Higher paid labor pays more in Taxes and Creates more in Demand. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage cover the cost of social services

As I have already proven - and you already admitted - government mandated high labor costs for unskilled labor results in unemployment. Unemployed people make $0.00. You can’t tax $0.00. That means less revenue for government (at a time when there are more people unemployed people, thus requiring more government assistance).

You have flawlessly illustrated why left-wing policy ends in economic collapse and perpetual poverty. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union. It didn’t work in Ethiopia. It didn’t work in Cuba. It didn’t work in Venezuela. It didn’t work in Detroit (officially filed for bankruptcy). It will not work in the U.S.

Stop being lazy and greedy.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking about.

I’ve already proven you wrong, snowflake. I have the history, the data, the results, the facts, etc. - and I’ve posted them all. Don’t project. You’re the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about and everyone here knows it.

all you have is a fallacy and being willing to avoid the truth for purely partisan politics.

 

[danielpalos]

Higher paid labor pays more in Taxes and Creates more in Demand. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage cover the cost of social services

As I have already proven - and you already admitted - government mandated high labor costs for unskilled labor results in unemployment. Unemployed people make $0.00. You can’t tax $0.00. That means less revenue for government (at a time when there are more people unemployed people, thus requiring more government assistance).

You have flawlessly illustrated why left-wing policy ends in economic collapse and perpetual poverty. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union. It didn’t work in Ethiopia. It didn’t work in Cuba. It didn’t work in Venezuela. It didn’t work in Detroit (officially filed for bankruptcy). It will not work in the U.S.

Stop being lazy and greedy.

you keep omitting the automatic stabilization of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; fallacy coincidence or fallacy conspiracy.

 

[P@triot]

you keep omitting the automatic stabilization of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; fallacy coincidence or fallacy conspiracy.

No I haven’t. You keep “omitting” the fact that that means even more expense for government and less tax revenues for government.

Only an idiot thinks that more money going out the door for government and less coming in is a good idea. Paying people not to work, doesn’t work.

 

[danielpalos]

you keep omitting the automatic stabilization of unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; fallacy coincidence or fallacy conspiracy.

No I haven’t. You keep “omitting” the fact that that means even more expense for government and less tax revenues for government.

Only an idiot thinks that more money going out the door for government and less coming in is a good idea. Paying people not to work, doesn’t work.

it is more cost effective than means tested welfare; which actually does limit capital mobility. We should increase market share for the most cost effective social service.

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of employment inefficiency, is the Market based reason for the Efficiency of such a program.

 

[P@triot]

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of employment inefficiency, is the Market based reason for the Efficiency of such a program.

So Daniel's "free market NOT socialist" suggestion is for government to pay people not to work. Uh...that is kind of the textbook definition of socialism. There is nothing free market about that.

Unfortunately for you, you've spent your entire life around left-wing dolts. They are very easy to dupe by throwing around a few words. But conservatives actually think for themselves. You're not fooling any of us by obnoxiously using the term "market" over and over and over and over. What you're pitching has NOTHING to do with the free market. It's pure idiocy. I've proven it already. It collapsed Venezuela. I've also proven it in that you refuse to send me $14 an hour to prove you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Epic fail on all fronts.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of employment inefficiency, is the Market based reason for the Efficiency of such a program.

So Daniel's "free market NOT socialist" suggestion is for government to pay people not to work. Uh...that is kind of the textbook definition of socialism. There is nothing free market about that.

Unfortunately for you, you've spent your entire life around left-wing dolts. They are very easy to dupe by throwing around a few words. But conservatives actually think for themselves. You're not fooling any of us by obnoxiously using the term "market" over and over and over and over. What you're pitching has NOTHING to do with the free market. It's pure idiocy. I've proven it already. It collapsed Venezuela. I've also proven it in that you refuse to send me $14 an hour to prove you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Epic fail on all fronts.

You have to have morals to whine about how capital is spent, right wingers. You don't care about natural rights. Only capital Has to circulate to generate a positive multiplier effect. we want to lose low wage jobs that don't cover the cost of social services anyway.

 

[hadit]

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

 

[danielpalos]

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

 

[hadit]

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?

 

[danielpalos]

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.

 

[hadit]

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.

They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.

 

[P@triot]

Only capital Has to circulate to generate a positive multiplier effect.

And that is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else)

 

[danielpalos]

food stamps are waaaaaay down all over the country, not just Maine.

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.

They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.

too bad; providing for the general welfare is a general power; unlike the power to provide for the common defense.

 

[danielpalos]

Only capital Has to circulate to generate a positive multiplier effect.

View attachment 223584

And that is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics (or anything else)

Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.

 

[P@triot]

Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.

By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.



Danny...this is why nobody takes you seriously about economics.

 

[hadit]

That is a good thing. The fewer that need them, the better for everyone.

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.

They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.

too bad; providing for the general welfare is a general power; unlike the power to provide for the common defense.

I want fewer people on welfare. Do you want more, and why would you?

 

[hadit]

Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.

By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.

View attachment 223985

Danny...this is why nobody takes you seriously about economics.

That and the fact that he never deviates from his message, even using the same meaningless phrases over and over again.

 

[danielpalos]

Capital Has to circulate, not fools or horses in a first world economy.

By that “logic”, you and your neighbor need only pass two $1 bills back and forth all day every day for eight hours a day to generate wealth.

View attachment 223985

Danny...this is why nobody takes you seriously about economics.

we have an open market based economy not a closed market based economy; that is why the left shouldn't take the right seriously about economics.

 

[danielpalos]

what is wrong with Simple compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

why "punish" the Poor with your faux morals.

Think about what you said. You just said that not needing food stamps is punishing the poor. How dumb is that?

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective than food stamps.

They're both welfare, and the fewer that need either, the better.

too bad; providing for the general welfare is a general power; unlike the power to provide for the common defense.

I want fewer people on welfare. Do you want more, and why would you?

Fewer people on means tested welfare could be accomplished by compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our market based economy. We could be lowering our tax burden in a market friendly manner by merely improving the efficiency of our economy.