Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[hadit]

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There's no bigotry in noting that the law gives you no access to the fruit of others' labor.

It isn't the fruit of Your labor. In any case, it will be money well spent. We can end our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; to pay for it.

Actually, it is the fruit of my labor. Every dollar I pay in taxes I earned first. What, did you think government earned money somehow? Everything it has it took from people who earned it.

Equal protection of the law is a function of government. And, it would be business that pays it, not You.

Bottom line, you want to be paid but not work. That is immoral. Only the immoral left wing, never gets it. They cannot be trusted with power.

 

[hadit]

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

We already have equal protection under the law. Have you forgotten already how thoroughly I drubbed you on the subject?

No, we don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

We could end homelessness, by solving for simple poverty.

Yes, you've forgotten, or more likely, are just repeating the same failed set of platitudes that have been destroyed so completely.

 

[Papageorgio]

Solving simple poverty is not simple and it takes lots of money, the initial costs would be prohibitive. We can even fund SSI and Medicare, it is breaking us and that was already funded.

Simple poverty can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. That is pretty efficient.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

You still haven’t explained how it wouldn’t cost but I don’t expect it, all you have is cliches and no real ideas.

It is less expensive than means tested welfare and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy. It is about giving Labor the modern conveniences of Capitalism.

Only the right wing insists on the Socialism of morals from the Age of Iron in modern times.

Only you come up with stupid unsubstantiated BS. You want to discuss, discuss and leave out the silly nonsensical attacks.

Where is your backing that your idea is less expensive than the current system.

Self-evident truths. Unemployment compensation should be as simple as applying for it; unlike, means tested welfare.

Where is your proof that giving everyone unemployment would be more economically beneficial than the current system? Quite frankly if everyone made $14 that didn’t want to work the total would far exceed the current welfare expenditures. 325,000,000 x 14 x 173 if my formula is correct.

 

[Papageorgio]

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There's no bigotry in noting that the law gives you no access to the fruit of others' labor.

It isn't the fruit of Your labor. In any case, it will be money well spent. We can end our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; to pay for it.

Actually, it is the fruit of my labor. Every dollar I pay in taxes I earned first. What, did you think government earned money somehow? Everything it has it took from people who earned it.

Equal protection of the law is a function of government. And, it would be business that pays it, not You.

If I was a business and had to pay $14 per hour to everyone I didn’t hire, I’d hire them and pay them $15 to scrub every inch of my business everyday until they quit. That would free me up from lazy people.

 

[Papageorgio]

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

We already have equal protection under the law. Have you forgotten already how thoroughly I drubbed you on the subject?

No, we don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

We could end homelessness, by solving for simple poverty.

Not that easy, you think that every homeless person wants a home? They have mental not monetary issue and if you don’t solve that, you won’t solve poverty. The poverty issue is not that easy to solve and your idea of paying people to sit home and do nothing would not solve poverty because your proposal is unsustainable.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, because no one wants to give you what you don't earn, and don't need but can't get on your own.

Solving for socioeconomic problems in is our Constitution; it is termed and styled, providing for the general welfare.

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

I have no issue with it when applied in the context of the Constitution. You are misapplying it.

 

[Slyhunter]

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

We already have equal protection under the law. Have you forgotten already how thoroughly I drubbed you on the subject?

No, we don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

We could end homelessness, by solving for simple poverty.

Not that easy, you think that every homeless person wants a home? They have mental not monetary issue and if you don’t solve that, you won’t solve poverty. The poverty issue is not that easy to solve and your idea of paying people to sit home and do nothing would not solve poverty because your proposal is unsustainable.

If they don't approve my unemployment for whatever reason I'm going to be homeless within a month or two, along with my family. All because my company is terrified what a liberal will do in reply to a comment I made on some news site, not because of a mental disorder.

Brought up another factoid; I was kicked out of a University because the English teacher said I was a Heartless asshole because I wrote a report that stated people should be responsible for their own actions. She flunked me out of English because of that one report. And they wouldn't let me take a different english teacher the following semester and she flunked me again. Simply because she didn't like me.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There's no bigotry in noting that the law gives you no access to the fruit of others' labor.

It isn't the fruit of Your labor. In any case, it will be money well spent. We can end our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; to pay for it.

Actually, it is the fruit of my labor. Every dollar I pay in taxes I earned first. What, did you think government earned money somehow? Everything it has it took from people who earned it.

Equal protection of the law is a function of government. And, it would be business that pays it, not You.

Bottom line, you want to be paid but not work. That is immoral. Only the immoral left wing, never gets it. They cannot be trusted with power.

Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment; I am merely, naturally unemployed. Only the right wing, never has any solutions.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

We already have equal protection under the law. Have you forgotten already how thoroughly I drubbed you on the subject?

No, we don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

We could end homelessness, by solving for simple poverty.

Yes, you've forgotten, or more likely, are just repeating the same failed set of platitudes that have been destroyed so completely.

Only capital is required under capitalism. The right wing simply doesn't understand economics.

 

[danielpalos]

Simple poverty can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. That is pretty efficient.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

You still haven’t explained how it wouldn’t cost but I don’t expect it, all you have is cliches and no real ideas.

It is less expensive than means tested welfare and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy. It is about giving Labor the modern conveniences of Capitalism.

Only the right wing insists on the Socialism of morals from the Age of Iron in modern times.

Only you come up with stupid unsubstantiated BS. You want to discuss, discuss and leave out the silly nonsensical attacks.

Where is your backing that your idea is less expensive than the current system.

Self-evident truths. Unemployment compensation should be as simple as applying for it; unlike, means tested welfare.

Where is your proof that giving everyone unemployment would be more economically beneficial than the current system? Quite frankly if everyone made $14 that didn’t want to work the total would far exceed the current welfare expenditures. 325,000,000 x 14 x 173 if my formula is correct.

equal protection of the law, is in our Constitution. Only the right wing claims morality while bearing false witness to our own laws and being, that immoral.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There's no bigotry in noting that the law gives you no access to the fruit of others' labor.

It isn't the fruit of Your labor. In any case, it will be money well spent. We can end our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; to pay for it.

Actually, it is the fruit of my labor. Every dollar I pay in taxes I earned first. What, did you think government earned money somehow? Everything it has it took from people who earned it.

Equal protection of the law is a function of government. And, it would be business that pays it, not You.

If I was a business and had to pay $14 per hour to everyone I didn’t hire, I’d hire them and pay them $15 to scrub every inch of my business everyday until they quit. That would free me up from lazy people.

it should be a general tax. now, you have to create an account everyone you employ. moving from a direct tax to a general tax will be simpler.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

We already have equal protection under the law. Have you forgotten already how thoroughly I drubbed you on the subject?

No, we don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

We could end homelessness, by solving for simple poverty.

Not that easy, you think that every homeless person wants a home? They have mental not monetary issue and if you don’t solve that, you won’t solve poverty. The poverty issue is not that easy to solve and your idea of paying people to sit home and do nothing would not solve poverty because your proposal is unsustainable.

Anyone who can't apply for unemployment should go on welfare. That is how much we could be saving. Not everyone needs to be on welfare if they could just go on unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving for socioeconomic problems in is our Constitution; it is termed and styled, providing for the general welfare.

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

I have no issue with it when applied in the context of the Constitution. You are misapplying it.

There is no misapplying, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party not just the employer.

 

[hadit]

There's no bigotry in noting that the law gives you no access to the fruit of others' labor.

It isn't the fruit of Your labor. In any case, it will be money well spent. We can end our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; to pay for it.

Actually, it is the fruit of my labor. Every dollar I pay in taxes I earned first. What, did you think government earned money somehow? Everything it has it took from people who earned it.

Equal protection of the law is a function of government. And, it would be business that pays it, not You.

Bottom line, you want to be paid but not work. That is immoral. Only the immoral left wing, never gets it. They cannot be trusted with power.

Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment; I am merely, naturally unemployed. Only the right wing, never has any solutions.

That can only be true if you are disabled or if you are hunting for a job but cannot find one. If neither of those are true, you're twisting words to mean things they don't mean, aka lying.

 

[hadit]

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

We already have equal protection under the law. Have you forgotten already how thoroughly I drubbed you on the subject?

No, we don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

We could end homelessness, by solving for simple poverty.

Yes, you've forgotten, or more likely, are just repeating the same failed set of platitudes that have been destroyed so completely.

Only capital is required under capitalism. The right wing simply doesn't understand economics.

Another failed platitude. Making my case for me. At this stage, you will spout off a few more of them with no attempt to even make them relevant, then disappear for a while, only to pop up again with the exact same list.

 

[hadit]

There's no bigotry in noting that the law gives you no access to the fruit of others' labor.

It isn't the fruit of Your labor. In any case, it will be money well spent. We can end our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; to pay for it.

Actually, it is the fruit of my labor. Every dollar I pay in taxes I earned first. What, did you think government earned money somehow? Everything it has it took from people who earned it.

Equal protection of the law is a function of government. And, it would be business that pays it, not You.

If I was a business and had to pay $14 per hour to everyone I didn’t hire, I’d hire them and pay them $15 to scrub every inch of my business everyday until they quit. That would free me up from lazy people.

it should be a general tax. now, you have to create an account everyone you employ. moving from a direct tax to a general tax will be simpler.

IOW, you want the employer to pay you without you being required to provide him any value for doing so.

 

[hadit]

That has nothing to do with your desire to live off others' hard work.

It is about the law, right wingers; not enough bigotry in it for y'all?

There is nothing in the law that requires others to give you what you are not willing to work for yourself.

How do you make the jump to bigotry or is that the buzz word you have been trained to mislead with?

It has to do with equal protection of the law. Only the right wing, has a problem with it. Bigotry?

I have no issue with it when applied in the context of the Constitution. You are misapplying it.

There is no misapplying, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party not just the employer.

There is, however, complete and total blargling of the idea behind the law. At will doesn't mean that you get to claim unemployment if you didn't work in the first place.

 

[irosie91]

They want welfare because welfare is their replacement for slavery. They need a dependent class in order to justify their existence.

Food stamps feed children

Yup. Food stamps feed the children of the criminal and retarded class, who are created by and maintained by Democrats as their slaves.

And if the foodstamps disappeared, someone else would feed those children. Maybe even their own parents. That would be something, huh?

No K-girl. My work (when I worked) included working with sick kids-----"CLINIC PATIENTS"-----sad
cases ----children (or grandchildren) of impoverished caregivers----------thanks to FOOD STAMPS ---I saw
no STARVATION-------you kinda make me either sick or wondering if you ever looked around-----outside of
your own HIGHLY PRIVILEGED social set. You are clueless

 

[irosie91]

They want welfare because welfare is their replacement for slavery. They need a dependent class in order to justify their existence.

Food stamps feed children

Yup. Food stamps feed the children of the criminal and retarded class, who are created by and maintained by Democrats as their slaves.

And if the foodstamps disappeared, someone else would feed those children. Maybe even their own parents. That would be something, huh?

No K-girl. My work (when I worked) included working with sick kids-----"CLINIC PATIENTS"-----sad
cases ----children (or grandchildren) of impoverished caregivers----------thanks to FOOD STAMPS ---I saw
no STARVATION-------you kinda make me either sick or wondering if you ever looked around-----outside of
your own HIGHLY PRIVILEGED social set. You are clueless

funny? k-girl? ---------you make me sick

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's all about the facts, Friday, all about the facts. Something alien to the right wing so stuck in denial and and suffering cognitive dissonance. Take two Xanax and smoke a joint - you might then experience a breakthrough.

You know from my perspective both sides lie, make dumb generalizations and add nothing, just as I pointed out in your post. Maybe if you laid off the Xanax and pot you might begin to think again before your next post, otherwise you are no different than shootspeeders, just a hateful whacko.

LOL, what have you ever contributed to an issue? You're a childish bum.

Lol! With your comments and you criticize others? Lol! Nutso Democrat.

Still no rebuttal! How can I know your perspective, since all you do is whine and post ad hominems? You strike me as a negative Nellie, up tight and uninformed.

Maybe I judge too harshly, maybe there is some substance to you, and something more thoughtful than calling someone a "Nutso Democrat". Make a case and I'll consider my judgment of you as a childish bum.

Good, I really don’t care what you think of me because I think you are a low life asshole. Your opinions are ill informed and based off of nothing but your opinion. So think what you like and enjoy.

Seems my criticism has hit home, the first step in your recovery ought not denial, but acceptance of your lack of substance and superficial postings; thus your transference, wherein you have redirected your emotions and feelings, from yourself to me.