Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[jc456]

You have no repeal, you want no repeal, repeal means your power ends. That is why you cry for no repeal, status quo is not your foe.

you wish. the right has no solutions; nothing but repeal. the democrats pushed through healthcare reform.

Pushed only to serve their power hungry agenda, it wasn't passed for poor blacks, it was passed for rich whites.

nothing but excuses, in the non-porn sector? the right wing still has no Thing but repeal instead of any form of better solution at lower cost.

again, repeal is better than what exists today. just saying. if it wasn't, the dems wouldn't be looking at reforming anything. right?

all talk and not action? even "free chics" can do that.

well fk, when you want something, learn to ask in English. that is all I'm speaking in here.

 

[Redfish]

a better solution than paying unemployment???? How about creating jobs? Pretty simple, but it only fixes it for people that want to work.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; it is a natural rate of inefficiency from a social perspective of full employment of human capital resources. Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

which it does today. you're just flopping around out of water fish!!!

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

and yet ten times whatever you are. dude, keep flopping.

Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

are you saying that "equal protection under the law" means that everyone gets the same pay no matter what job they do?

 

[jc456]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; it is a natural rate of inefficiency from a social perspective of full employment of human capital resources. Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

which it does today. you're just flopping around out of water fish!!!

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

and yet ten times whatever you are. dude, keep flopping.

Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

are you saying that "equal protection under the law" means that everyone gets the same pay no matter what job they do?

well if he wrote in fking English, you'd know what he's asking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad to point out your errors.

Yes, it does, simply Because, Capital must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. No amount of right wing fantasy, can change that.

Handing money to layabouts is a waste of capital. Negative multiplier.
No amount of unemployed stoner whining can change that.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

And yet, can still point out the huge holes in your "ideas".

No, you can't. You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost; that is why, you have nothing but repeal.

No, you can't.

Sure I can. If you pay layabouts to lay about, they will.
This reduces GDP and will result in higher taxes and lower productivity.

You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost

Sure I can....get a job, lazy bum.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We do have employment at will. You don't want to work, then don't work and don't get paid.

Yes, unemployment is an insurance program. The only unemployment safety net is federal unemployment, and that's only issued by the President during tough times when there are few jobs and people run out of state unemployment.

It is about equal protection of the law. Employment is at the will of either party, so is unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It is equal protection. If you get laid off from your job, you can collect unemployment. If I get laid off from my job, I can collect unemployment. Anybody who loses their job through no fault of their own can collect unemployment. Nobody is discriminated against. How can it be more equal than that?

Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes. You have nothing but red herrings, right winger; simply learning how to fish for that, is worthless.

Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

Nope, just for employment purposes.
For unemployment, you don't qualify if you quit or never worked.

Is that State, an employment at will State, or not. It really is that simple.

Yes. Get a job.

 

[Papageorgio]

And the Democrats don't want to do that, they would lose the base of voters. No wonder liberals hate poor blacks.

Just right wing fantasy. Actually having solutions should increase market share.

No, the wealth of the blacks would be the downfall of the Democratic Party, now we know why the Democratic Party hates poor blacks.

some solutions that may not work are better than nothing but repeal.

The Democrats want power, they keep power by keeping the low and down trodden, low and down trodden, however you knew that because you subscribe to the theory.

the democrats got some health care reform; the republicans and right wing have nothing but repeal, and don't mind dropping expensive bombs while claiming we can keep lowering taxes.

Which has nothing to do with the hate of the Democrats for poor black people, you have provided nothing but a smokescreen to your nefarious agenda.

 

[Papageorgio]

you wish. the right has no solutions; nothing but repeal. the democrats pushed through healthcare reform.

The Democrats passed health care because they hate poor blacks and want them to resign to the fact the democrats will always need poor blacks, no matter how hated they are by Democrats.

that makes no sense. more sense is, the right hates blacks, and refuse to come up with better solutions at lower cost, as a result.

i love to "compete" for fun and practice. Ask Boss or Ding.

I already explained, the right gave respect back to welfare folks in the 90s. you all took that away in 2009. WTF? you should learn history.

All he has is canned responses, that way he doesn't need to think, just do what he is told.

I have no fking clue what he is even discussing. I don't talk stupid. It would be nice if he was writing coherently so a normal person would understand his position. right now, he is but a fish flopping out of water.

He doesn't discuss anything and nothing more than a line two of some silly childish saying that means absolutely nothing and is way off topic. That is how clueless the left is.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Democrats passed health care because they hate poor blacks and want them to resign to the fact the democrats will always need poor blacks, no matter how hated they are by Democrats.

that makes no sense. more sense is, the right hates blacks, and refuse to come up with better solutions at lower cost, as a result.

i love to "compete" for fun and practice. Ask Boss or Ding.

I already explained, the right gave respect back to welfare folks in the 90s. you all took that away in 2009. WTF? you should learn history.

All he has is canned responses, that way he doesn't need to think, just do what he is told.

I have no fking clue what he is even discussing. I don't talk stupid. It would be nice if he was writing coherently so a normal person would understand his position. right now, he is but a fish flopping out of water.

simply clueless and Causeless while claiming equal work for equal "pay"?

You are clueless and causeless, thanks for admitting you are an average democrat.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Democrats passed health care because they hate poor blacks and want them to resign to the fact the democrats will always need poor blacks, no matter how hated they are by Democrats.

that makes no sense. more sense is, the right hates blacks, and refuse to come up with better solutions at lower cost, as a result.

i love to "compete" for fun and practice. Ask Boss or Ding.

I already explained, the right gave respect back to welfare folks in the 90s. you all took that away in 2009. WTF? you should learn history.

nothing but repeal, is all the right wing has now.

it is better than what is active today. yep!!!!

he right hates blacks, and refuse to come up with better solutions at lower cost, as a result.

Repeal is usually a better course of action than continuing down the wrong road. Obamacare is a disaster for the middle class and especially the poor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

And yet, can still point out the huge holes in your "ideas".

No, you can't. You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost; that is why, you have nothing but repeal.

a better solution than paying unemployment???? How about creating jobs? Pretty simple, but it only fixes it for people that want to work.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; it is a natural rate of inefficiency from a social perspective of full employment of human capital resources. Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

correct, there will always be a small % of unemployed under any system. Most of them will be those who are mentally or physically unable to work----and the system should take care of those people.

But, unfortunately, what we have today in the US is a group of unemployable people, either by their personal choice or because they have not gained the skills needed to do any kind of work. We have generations of unemployed in our central cities and in some rural areas. Our system does nothing to solve this problem, continuing the giveaways, as you libs want to do, does not solve the problem, it perpetuates it.

Now, if those chronically unemployed were required to clean the streets and public buildings in exchange for their UE checks, you would see many of them finding jobs.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We do have employment at will. You don't want to work, then don't work and don't get paid.

Yes, unemployment is an insurance program. The only unemployment safety net is federal unemployment, and that's only issued by the President during tough times when there are few jobs and people run out of state unemployment.

It is about equal protection of the law. Employment is at the will of either party, so is unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It is equal protection. If you get laid off from your job, you can collect unemployment. If I get laid off from my job, I can collect unemployment. Anybody who loses their job through no fault of their own can collect unemployment. Nobody is discriminated against. How can it be more equal than that?

Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes. You have nothing but red herrings, right winger; simply learning how to fish for that, is worthless.

I'm trying to make out what you are saying; your punctuation is atrocious and I'm doing what I can to piece together your words to make a coherent sentence.

Yes, unemployment compensation is when you lose your job through no fault of your own. If it is your fault, say you threatened somebody at the company, you got caught stealing, coming to work late all the time, you don't get compensated for that because it's your fault (not your employers) that you got fired.

Insurance is to cover you for things you don't have control over.

A Person has a Cause in any open Court in the several, United States.

WTF is that even supposed to mean? What courts? What several states? What are you talking about?

 

[Markle]

agree, it amazes me that when the clowns in DC reduce the rate of increase in a budget line, they call it a cut. So instead of adding 10% to a budget, they only add 8% and call it a cut when the budget is actually 108% of the previous years budget.

My guess is that you could tell that to 95% of voters and they would swear you are lying. To them, if you say a 2% cut, that means you took the 100% from last year and instead of it being 108% this year it will be 98%. They don't have a clue and congress doesn't want them to have a clue.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; it is a natural rate of inefficiency from a social perspective of full employment of human capital resources. Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

which it does today. you're just flopping around out of water fish!!!

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

and yet ten times whatever you are. dude, keep flopping.

Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

are you saying that "equal protection under the law" means that everyone gets the same pay no matter what job they do?

no, only right wing doesn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. how seriously can we take them, in politics.

 

[danielpalos]

which it does today. you're just flopping around out of water fish!!!

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

and yet ten times whatever you are. dude, keep flopping.

Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

are you saying that "equal protection under the law" means that everyone gets the same pay no matter what job they do?

well if he wrote in fking English, you'd know what he's asking.

you are merely, too incompetent to discuss politics.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it does, simply Because, Capital must circulate to produce a positive multiplier effect on our economy. No amount of right wing fantasy, can change that.

Handing money to layabouts is a waste of capital. Negative multiplier.
No amount of unemployed stoner whining can change that.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

And yet, can still point out the huge holes in your "ideas".

No, you can't. You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost; that is why, you have nothing but repeal.

No, you can't.

Sure I can. If you pay layabouts to lay about, they will.
This reduces GDP and will result in higher taxes and lower productivity.

You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost

Sure I can....get a job, lazy bum.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Economics is not a right wing, forte.

Simply circulating capital is what creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about equal protection of the law. Employment is at the will of either party, so is unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It is equal protection. If you get laid off from your job, you can collect unemployment. If I get laid off from my job, I can collect unemployment. Anybody who loses their job through no fault of their own can collect unemployment. Nobody is discriminated against. How can it be more equal than that?

Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes. You have nothing but red herrings, right winger; simply learning how to fish for that, is worthless.

Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

Nope, just for employment purposes.
For unemployment, you don't qualify if you quit or never worked.

Is that State, an employment at will State, or not. It really is that simple.

Yes. Get a job.

don't mooch and be a welfare recipient for arguments. work hard and get a real argument.

 

[danielpalos]

The Democrats passed health care because they hate poor blacks and want them to resign to the fact the democrats will always need poor blacks, no matter how hated they are by Democrats.

that makes no sense. more sense is, the right hates blacks, and refuse to come up with better solutions at lower cost, as a result.

i love to "compete" for fun and practice. Ask Boss or Ding.

I already explained, the right gave respect back to welfare folks in the 90s. you all took that away in 2009. WTF? you should learn history.

All he has is canned responses, that way he doesn't need to think, just do what he is told.

I have no fking clue what he is even discussing. I don't talk stupid. It would be nice if he was writing coherently so a normal person would understand his position. right now, he is but a fish flopping out of water.

He doesn't discuss anything and nothing more than a line two of some silly childish saying that means absolutely nothing and is way off topic. That is how clueless the left is.

nothing but repeal; how, full of worth is that, in the non-porn sector?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Handing money to layabouts is a waste of capital. Negative multiplier.
No amount of unemployed stoner whining can change that.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

And yet, can still point out the huge holes in your "ideas".

No, you can't. You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost; that is why, you have nothing but repeal.

No, you can't.

Sure I can. If you pay layabouts to lay about, they will.
This reduces GDP and will result in higher taxes and lower productivity.

You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost

Sure I can....get a job, lazy bum.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Economics is not a right wing, forte.

Simply circulating capital is what creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Economics is not a right wing, forte.

I agree, just because liberals are really, really bad at it doesn't mean it's exclusively for the right wing.

Simply circulating capital is what creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

So, so wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

And yet, can still point out the huge holes in your "ideas".

No, you can't. You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost; that is why, you have nothing but repeal.

a better solution than paying unemployment???? How about creating jobs? Pretty simple, but it only fixes it for people that want to work.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; it is a natural rate of inefficiency from a social perspective of full employment of human capital resources. Unemployment compensation can correct for that capitalism based inefficiency, via the socialism of equal protection of the law, for Labor, as the least wealthy in our Republic.

correct, there will always be a small % of unemployed under any system. Most of them will be those who are mentally or physically unable to work----and the system should take care of those people.

But, unfortunately, what we have today in the US is a group of unemployable people, either by their personal choice or because they have not gained the skills needed to do any kind of work. We have generations of unemployed in our central cities and in some rural areas. Our system does nothing to solve this problem, continuing the giveaways, as you libs want to do, does not solve the problem, it perpetuates it.

Now, if those chronically unemployed were required to clean the streets and public buildings in exchange for their UE checks, you would see many of them finding jobs.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

Is Maine an at-will employment State or not?

Select a Section 1/0

In 2015, the U.S. government spent over $1 trillion on means-tested welfare aid, providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income individuals. The food stamp program is the nation’s second largest means-tested welfare program.[1] The number of food stamp recipients has risen dramatically from about 17.2 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2015.[2] Costs have risen from $20.7 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2000 to $83.1 billion in FY 2014.[3]

Growth in the food stamp caseload occurred particularly rapidly among able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). These are work-capable adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who do not have children or other dependents to support. The ABAWD food stamp caseload grew by nearly 150 percent between 2008 and 2014 and has risen from nearly 2 million recipients in 2008 to around 5 million today.[4]

While relying on taxpayers to pay for their food, government data sources show that many ABAWDs use their own funds counterproductively. Over half of ABAWDs regularly smoke tobacco; those who smoke consume on average 19 packs of cigarettes per month at an estimated monthly cost of $111.

In response to the growth in food stamp dependence, Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage, recently established work requirements on ABAWD recipients. In Maine, all ABAWDs in the food stamp program are now required to take a job, participate in training, or perform community service.

 

[danielpalos]

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

And yet, can still point out the huge holes in your "ideas".

No, you can't. You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost; that is why, you have nothing but repeal.

No, you can't.

Sure I can. If you pay layabouts to lay about, they will.
This reduces GDP and will result in higher taxes and lower productivity.

You can't even come up with a better solution at lower cost

Sure I can....get a job, lazy bum.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Economics is not a right wing, forte.

Simply circulating capital is what creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Economics is not a right wing, forte.

I agree, just because liberals are really, really bad at it doesn't mean it's exclusively for the right wing.

Simply circulating capital is what creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

So, so wrong.

Yes, it does, simply Because, I say so.