Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[hadit]

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.

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

employment is at the will of either party. what part of that law, do you not get?

It means either one of you can terminate the job. You can leave whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want. Will you ever get that through your head?

It means you should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

Nothing but repeal, is worthless, right wingers. Why do you care how much I make or how I make it; should the poor care how much the rich make and how they make it?

 

[hadit]

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.

Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

You're not solving anything.

Yes, it does. Nothing but repeal solves less.

All it does is turn businesses into welfare distribution centers and hide the true cost of supporting those who could support themselves, but won't.

 

[hadit]

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.

employment is at the will of either party. what part of that law, do you not get?

It means either one of you can terminate the job. You can leave whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want. Will you ever get that through your head?

It means you should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your math doesn’t add up, sorry but the facts are that it would cost over $9 trillion a year, what do you estimate the cost to be and why? They way you have it, I’d have to make $140 an hour at a 90% tax rate to make it worth my while to work, since I’ll get $14 an hour if I don’t. With your idea, you would shut the economy down because working people would make less.

Let’s see you numbers.

Why do you believe that? Unemployment should go down with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. And, unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy and general welfare; unlike the general warfare.

Automatic Stabilizer

Thus, solving for simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage will improve the efficiency of our economy for healthcare reform via market friendly means.

The numbers don’t add up, you can claim what you want but I’m showing a $9 trillion program. Show me your numbers.

Let's assume around twenty-eight thousand per person per year who applies for unemployment compensation.

Why do you believe we would be worse off; with more people spending more money for goods and services?

Automatic Stabilizer

Again, where does $9 trillion in spending come from? Higher taxes? Then you tax rate for all workers would need to be 90%, at a 90% tax rate, anyone making less than $140 an hour would be losing money.

Do you have real numbers to go with your scenario? My numbers maybe off but I wouldn’t know since your plan is vague and now looks totally cost prohibitive.

It wouldn't be new spending; it would be doing more with less. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective than Any form of means tested welfare.

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

 

[hadit]

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.

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

Nothing but repeal, is worthless, right wingers. Why do you care how much I make or how I make it; should the poor care how much the rich make and how they make it?

If you're trying to take it from what I have legally earned, I have something to say about it.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

 

[Papageorgio]

employment is at the will of either party. what part of that law, do you not get?

It means either one of you can terminate the job. You can leave whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want. Will you ever get that through your head?

It means you should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

He is a hopeless leftwing nut, all talk, lofty, expensive ideas that in the real world would fail miserably. But that doesn’t stop his nonsense and his misapplication of the Constitution and slogans.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.

You're not solving anything.

Yes, it does. Nothing but repeal solves less.

All it does is turn businesses into welfare distribution centers and hide the true cost of supporting those who could support themselves, but won't.

No, it doesn't. It is simple and more efficient, income redistribution.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. what part of that law, do you not get?

It means either one of you can terminate the job. You can leave whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want. Will you ever get that through your head?

It means you should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

A federal doctrine and State laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe that? Unemployment should go down with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. And, unemployment compensation engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy and general welfare; unlike the general warfare.

Automatic Stabilizer

Thus, solving for simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage will improve the efficiency of our economy for healthcare reform via market friendly means.

The numbers don’t add up, you can claim what you want but I’m showing a $9 trillion program. Show me your numbers.

Let's assume around twenty-eight thousand per person per year who applies for unemployment compensation.

Why do you believe we would be worse off; with more people spending more money for goods and services?

Automatic Stabilizer

Again, where does $9 trillion in spending come from? Higher taxes? Then you tax rate for all workers would need to be 90%, at a 90% tax rate, anyone making less than $140 an hour would be losing money.

Do you have real numbers to go with your scenario? My numbers maybe off but I wouldn’t know since your plan is vague and now looks totally cost prohibitive.

It wouldn't be new spending; it would be doing more with less. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective than Any form of means tested welfare.

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

No, it won't. It will cost less than what we are paying now for less efficient government.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

Nothing but repeal, is worthless, right wingers. Why do you care how much I make or how I make it; should the poor care how much the rich make and how they make it?

If you're trying to take it from what I have legally earned, I have something to say about it.

Like financing tax cuts through public debt?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

 

[koshergrl]

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

You saw no starvation because it doesn't exist in our country except when it is deliberate.

I've worked in human services all my life. I advocate for and assist the poor, mentally ill, addicted and always have. I've written individual life plans for wards of the state and submitted recommendations to the courts regarding minors and sex offenders. I help people who don't function at an adult level...and who people are afraid of...get ssi benefits.

So fuck off. You are the privileged..you are too far removed from reality to understand it.

Oh...and I still work. My guess is you couldn't hack a job and have been sucking on entitlements your entire life.

starvation does not exist in the USA, except amongst depraved persons, criminals, and
brain damaged----BECAUSE OF FOOD STAMPS. I am very privileged----I worked all of my
life you friggen' bitch. MY "PRIVILEGE" status exists because of my ability to work. -----unlike
you, I do not fart and shit on those who cannot

Your life isn't over and you aren't working. Like I said you are the clueless lunatic. How much do you pull in foodstamps a month, leech?

how many "tricks" do you turn each day--you filthy whore?

You're confusing me with tigger or mani.

 

[Papageorgio]

The numbers don’t add up, you can claim what you want but I’m showing a $9 trillion program. Show me your numbers.

Let's assume around twenty-eight thousand per person per year who applies for unemployment compensation.

Why do you believe we would be worse off; with more people spending more money for goods and services?

Automatic Stabilizer

Again, where does $9 trillion in spending come from? Higher taxes? Then you tax rate for all workers would need to be 90%, at a 90% tax rate, anyone making less than $140 an hour would be losing money.

Do you have real numbers to go with your scenario? My numbers maybe off but I wouldn’t know since your plan is vague and now looks totally cost prohibitive.

It wouldn't be new spending; it would be doing more with less. Unemployment compensation is much more cost effective than Any form of means tested welfare.

Our US budget is currently less than $3 trillion a year. Your purposed idea would cost $9 trillion a year. Please explain where the $6 trillion more in spending is going to come from and this doesn’t include the current spending we have which you claim much would be gone.

So let’s see your numbers.

No, it won't. It will cost less than what we are paying now for less efficient government.

Then let’s see your numbers, I showed you mine, show me where I am wrong. So far all you have given is pie in the sky BS.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Nope; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

In other words, you have no solutions. Just admit it.

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

It seems all you have is just talk, you have no concept on how much this will cost or how it would work, you have exactly what you accuse the right of having, nothing but talk. Lots and lots of talk and no idea how it will work, you’d make a great Democratic Congressman.

Care to try to "break it"? All Labor need do is apply for unemployment compensation if they don't have a job.

It could not be simpler.

Name all the left wingers that have presented this in a form of a bill in Congress.

You have no ways to implement or no way that you have showed how the cost would work . So far you have words with no solid how to’s. So all talk and no action.

 

[otto105]

Why do republic pols and voters want to create them?

Such as this work requirement to receive Medicaid. Studies in Michigan and Ohio have shown that healthier people find and keep work at much higher rates than unhealthy people. But republic shithole thinking wants to remove the healthcare and make poor people even less healthy.

 

[hadit]

It means either one of you can terminate the job. You can leave whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want. Will you ever get that through your head?

It means you should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

No. UE is for when you lose your job through no fault of your own. You can quit any time you like, and you don't have to go back to work, but you don't have the right to the fruit of others' labor just because you don't want to work.

That is not, equal protection of the law.

Yes, it is. Cite the legal justification for your position. Cite the court cases that agree with you. Heck, cite your own case in which you successfully argued that you should be allowed to collect UE without working first. If you won't, give it up.

A federal doctrine and State laws.

Which ones? Cite the language.

 

[hadit]

And if you can support yourself but refuse to do so, it is not society's responsibility to pay you. That's the bottom line.

It is about actually solving socioeconomic problems not just being all talk and no action, right wingers.

But you're not doing that. You're trying to justify your desire to collect welfare instead of finding work.

Nothing but repeal, is worthless, right wingers. Why do you care how much I make or how I make it; should the poor care how much the rich make and how they make it?

If you're trying to take it from what I have legally earned, I have something to say about it.

Like financing tax cuts through public debt?

No. Tax cuts are not expenses.