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

[Redfish]

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

You are welcome to answer the question.

I did.
you just can't make this shit up. hahahaahahahahaha....

So who pays the workers and how much?

welfare. you didn't see that all caps word I put in the last response? here, can you fking even read?

WELFARE!!!!!

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

 

[danielpalos]

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

enforcing immigration laws is harassment? WTF?

this is why i don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.

 

[danielpalos]

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

so the only option is to cripple them forever with welfare so they'll always vote for more welfare??

Work or die, is the "solution" of the right wing.

that's what I do? why are they different?

You are an anecdote. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is a market based reality.

so you would guarantee everyone an income whether they work or not? Why would anyone work under that system?

We subscribe to capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I am suggesting simplifying our current regime to make it more effective and less expensive.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

capitalism didn't fail in 1929, have you ever had a class in American history? Its amazing how ignorant many americans are about our own country's history.

dear, capitalism died in 1929, and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

 

[danielpalos]

You are welcome to answer the question.

I did.
you just can't make this shit up. hahahaahahahahaha....

So who pays the workers and how much?

welfare. you didn't see that all caps word I put in the last response? here, can you fking even read?

WELFARE!!!!!

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

 

[Brain357]

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

 

[Papageorgio]

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brain357]

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

Which union do you belong to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self employed.

 

[Redfish]

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

 

[Redfish]

I did.
you just can't make this shit up. hahahaahahahahaha....

So who pays the workers and how much?

welfare. you didn't see that all caps word I put in the last response? here, can you fking even read?

WELFARE!!!!!

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

 

[Redfish]

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

capitalism didn't fail in 1929, have you ever had a class in American history? Its amazing how ignorant many americans are about our own country's history.

dear, capitalism died in 1929, and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest that you do. Also try 1984. Rand and Orwell saw this mess coming and wrote about it. They were prophetic in their accuracy about what this country has become.

The "equalization of opportunity" act in Atlas could have been written by a liberal democrat in 2016

 

[Brain357]

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

Obviously I agree with the idea of bringing back more good jobs. I don't agree with how he thinks he can do it. The idea of lowering corp taxes for good jobs and benefits seems way better than anything I'm hearing. Corps use the tax savings to pay more so inflation is limited. Employees making more pay more in income tax so gov still gets paid. Walmart could probably even pay enough so employees aren't on welfare, another plus. Money goes direct from employer to employee. No gov programs needed.

 

[Redfish]

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

Obviously I agree with the idea of bringing back more good jobs. I don't agree with how he thinks he can do it. The idea of lowering corp taxes for good jobs and benefits seems way better than anything I'm hearing. Corps use the tax savings to pay more so inflation is limited. Employees making more pay more in income tax so gov still gets paid. Walmart could probably even pay enough so employees aren't on welfare, another plus. Money goes direct from employer to employee. No gov programs needed.

'
you and Trump are saying the exact same things, strange that you don't know that.

 

[Brain357]

Employers pay labor. I am advocating simplifying our current regime of unemployment compensation, to a general tax on firms.

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

Obviously I agree with the idea of bringing back more good jobs. I don't agree with how he thinks he can do it. The idea of lowering corp taxes for good jobs and benefits seems way better than anything I'm hearing. Corps use the tax savings to pay more so inflation is limited. Employees making more pay more in income tax so gov still gets paid. Walmart could probably even pay enough so employees aren't on welfare, another plus. Money goes direct from employer to employee. No gov programs needed.

'
you and Trump are saying the exact same things, strange that you don't know that.

Similar goal, different strategy. He will give tax cuts with no strings attached. Those will go straight to the rich as we have seen with previous tax cuts. He wants tariffs which I have never seen work. Kicking out immigrants will increase costs by more than wages.

 

[danielpalos]

So who pays the workers and how much?

welfare. you didn't see that all caps word I put in the last response? here, can you fking even read?

WELFARE!!!!!

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

 

[danielpalos]

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

capitalism didn't fail in 1929, have you ever had a class in American history? Its amazing how ignorant many americans are about our own country's history.

dear, capitalism died in 1929, and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest that you do. Also try 1984. Rand and Orwell saw this mess coming and wrote about it. They were prophetic in their accuracy about what this country has become.

The "equalization of opportunity" act in Atlas could have been written by a liberal democrat in 2016

just right wing fiction. it is relatively meaningless in modern, economic times.

 

[Redfish]

companies are already taxed. Who pays taxes levied on companies? We do, the consumers.

I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits. More employees and better wages, lower taxes. Lots of well paid US employees, no taxes.

buy American and hire American. You sound like Trump.

Obviously I agree with the idea of bringing back more good jobs. I don't agree with how he thinks he can do it. The idea of lowering corp taxes for good jobs and benefits seems way better than anything I'm hearing. Corps use the tax savings to pay more so inflation is limited. Employees making more pay more in income tax so gov still gets paid. Walmart could probably even pay enough so employees aren't on welfare, another plus. Money goes direct from employer to employee. No gov programs needed.

'
you and Trump are saying the exact same things, strange that you don't know that.

Similar goal, different strategy. He will give tax cuts with no strings attached. Those will go straight to the rich as we have seen with previous tax cuts. He wants tariffs which I have never seen work. Kicking out immigrants will increase costs by more than wages.

No one wants to kick out immigrants or stop immigration. Do you understand that an illegal alien is not an immigrant? Do you understand that enforcing our immigration laws is one of the primary duties of the federal government?

What strings would you attach to corporate tax cuts? that they must hire people they don't need?

most countries put tariffs on US goods entering their country. Why shouldn't we do the same things to protect American jobs?

 

[Redfish]

dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?

So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?

it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.

capitalism didn't fail in 1929, have you ever had a class in American history? Its amazing how ignorant many americans are about our own country's history.

dear, capitalism died in 1929, and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest that you do. Also try 1984. Rand and Orwell saw this mess coming and wrote about it. They were prophetic in their accuracy about what this country has become.

The "equalization of opportunity" act in Atlas could have been written by a liberal democrat in 2016

just right wing fiction. it is relatively meaningless in modern, economic times.

you obviously have not read either book. not surprising.

 

[Redfish]

welfare. you didn't see that all caps word I put in the last response? here, can you fking even read?

WELFARE!!!!!

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the common offense or general warfare is not.

welfare in the context used in the constitution does not mean giving money to the poor or lazy. it means providing an environment that is safe and fair. It does not mean guaranteeing everyone equal results in life.

I don't take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You only have, "specifics".

the words of the constitution and the intent of the founders is quite clear. Individual freedom and responsibility in an environment of law.

Freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. Your results are based on your efforts and are not guaranteed by the federal government.

Both terms, promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare; that means, what ever will work in the most cost effective manner.

I think the words are "promote the general welfare" not "provide welfare in general".