Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[Papageorgio]

More nonsense from you. Give the numbers.

our current unemployment rate times twenty-eight thousand.

More failure and excuses.

By actually having something to factor other than a fallacy of false Cause?
twenty-eight thousand times six point five million is less than two hundred billion.

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; full employment will take care of the rest. More Persons will be paying taxes. So, more revenues will be received by State and local governments.

Anyone finding themselves unemployed in our at-will employment States will still be a productive member of society via the "equality of recourse to Capitalism", on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Sorry, you have no data to back up your claim. You are claiming that $9 trillion will be made up with more spending. Where is your proof? You have not refuted my numbers with your own, you have nothing but failure and excuses.

You are claiming nine trillion. I am only claiming the unemployment rate times twenty-eight thousand.

Give us the cost, you are the one disputing my numbers, I think you have nothing but failure and excuses.

simple math shows less than two hundred billion.

Simple math shows your numbers are way off. How many on welfare, how many that are no longer that are working going to rejoin the workforce? What about those on disability? They can all claim a right to work and your plan would be pay them all. Also when the program begins, many making under $20 might become unemployed because not working and making money is a lot easier than working and making money.

that is the point, dear. all of those other programs are more expensive.

 

[danielpalos]

our current unemployment rate times twenty-eight thousand.

More failure and excuses.

By actually having something to factor other than a fallacy of false Cause?
twenty-eight thousand times six point five million is less than two hundred billion.

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

 

[Papageorgio]

More failure and excuses.

By actually having something to factor other than a fallacy of false Cause?
twenty-eight thousand times six point five million is less than two hundred billion.

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

By actually having something to factor other than a fallacy of false Cause?
twenty-eight thousand times six point five million is less than two hundred billion.

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

 

[Papageorgio]

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

So that means that everyone can join?

 

[danielpalos]

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

So that means that everyone can join?

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

So that means that everyone can join?

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

 

[danielpalos]

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

So that means that everyone can join?

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

 

[hadit]

More failure and excuses.

By actually having something to factor other than a fallacy of false Cause?
twenty-eight thousand times six point five million is less than two hundred billion.

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Yeah, they need a justification for receiving the assistance.

 

[Papageorgio]

Who qualifies and who doesn’t? It seems that you are back to failure and excuses.

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

So that means that everyone can join?

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

 

[Papageorgio]

By actually having something to factor other than a fallacy of false Cause?
twenty-eight thousand times six point five million is less than two hundred billion.

You forgot those on welfare, you forgot all those that aren’t in the workforce now that will be when you bring about new policy. Your numbers are off.

We want to get people off of more expensive welfare.

So you won’t give all unemployed benefits?

for some, solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough.

Yeah, they need a justification for receiving the assistance.

This is what happens when people believe government owes them a life. Failures and excuses prevail.

 

[danielpalos]

self-selection; that is why it is so cost effective.

So that means that everyone can join?

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

 

[Papageorgio]

So that means that everyone can join?

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

sure; anyone can be poor on an at-will basis; we just don't allow poverty anymore.

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

The right wing has no understanding of economics. Capital just needs to be used; it doesn't care about ethics.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

The right wing has no understanding of economics. Capital just needs to be used; it doesn't care about ethics.

All you have is failure and excuses.

 

[hadit]

Then your numbers are way off. You would have to include all welfare participants, unemployed, disabled, retired, those that would rather sit for $14 than work and get paid $15-$18 an hour, those that have dropped out of the work force. Also those that quit looking for work, which pushes your numbers to almost a 45%. Your numbers are way off.

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

The right wing has no understanding of economics. Capital just needs to be used; it doesn't care about ethics.

Mathematics doesn't care about politics. You don't dare about math. Math obliterates your argument, but you don't care. You just keep repeating the same failed excuses over and over again.

 

[danielpalos]

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

The right wing has no understanding of economics. Capital just needs to be used; it doesn't care about ethics.

All you have is failure and excuses.

You simply don't understand economics. Why the need for rightwing socialism?

 

[danielpalos]

gaining market share from more expensive programs is what we want. in any case, those persons will be spending money and creating demand regardless of jobs availability.

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

The right wing has no understanding of economics. Capital just needs to be used; it doesn't care about ethics.

Mathematics doesn't care about politics. You don't dare about math. Math obliterates your argument, but you don't care. You just keep repeating the same failed excuses over and over again.

the math supports my contention and not yours.

 

[Papageorgio]

Approximately 95 million Americans over the age of 16 are unemployed. That means you would pay 95 million people close to $30,000 a year. That comes to approximately $2.7 trillion, which would double government spending. Now, your rules say anyone can get unemployment, so take a person $15 and hour, who pays into Social Security, pays into Medicaid, and you might as well take them out of the work force as they won’t work for less than they could sitting home. Now, since you said anyone, you have children under the age of 16 can also be paid for unemployment.

So if you cut ALL government spending, we would still be spending more.

Again, your numbers don’t work.

Only if we "roll all those other social services" into one simpler social service.

Rolling all those services into one will not trim back the budget the $2.7. Overall it would increase government spending.

Government was never designed or intended to pay a person for not working. Even during the Great Depression the government didn’t just hand people money for not having a job. They recruited men to work for the TVA and paid them for working. Now, if you had a government program that would hire person to help them through a tough time, I’m all for it.

You idea supports failure and excuses.

The right wing has no understanding of economics. Capital just needs to be used; it doesn't care about ethics.

All you have is failure and excuses.

You simply don't understand economics. Why the need for rightwing socialism?

The numbers don’t add up, all you have is failure and excuses.