Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

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.

sure they do. just end our wasteful and alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

How dense are you? We have been over this, even ending all spending, you would need $2.7 trillion. Quit repeating your failed ideas over and over, it doesn’t make them more viable.

nope; less than half a trillion.

Not if you include those that are no longer in the employment market, those on SSI and Medicare. Also, you claim all are eligible, so newborns, eight year olds, welfare recipients, those making minimum wage, you will have over 100 million participating make almost $30,000 a year for doing nothing. Do the math and let me know how bad your numbers really are. All you have is failure and excuses.

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No it doesn’t and we proved it over and over again as you try to change the numbers for it to work and you can’t. Our 95 million unemployed over 16 years of age proves the plan will fail, and you set the criteria as anyone, that doesn’t include those under the age of 16 who are part of your anyone. Again, failure and excuses are all you have.

yes, they do; all You have is, conjured up, right wing fantasy.

All you have is failure and more excuses.

all you have is, nothing but the fallacy of repeal.

See, you can’t refute the numbers, just more of your failure and excuses. Thanks for confirming you are clueless about economics and people.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No it doesn’t and we proved it over and over again as you try to change the numbers for it to work and you can’t. Our 95 million unemployed over 16 years of age proves the plan will fail, and you set the criteria as anyone, that doesn’t include those under the age of 16 who are part of your anyone. Again, failure and excuses are all you have.

No, it doesn't. All it proves is you understand nothing about economics or positive multiplier effects or even, growing the size of the pie.

You fail to refute the numbers, nothing but failure and excuses. When the numbers don’t add up, it doesn’t matter if you are left or right, socialist or capitalist, the numbers don’t add up.

Why do you keep offering more failure and excuses?

Not sure what you mean. QE was no problem; why do you believe actually solving a socioeconomic dilemma will be worse.

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

sure they do. just end our wasteful and alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

How dense are you? We have been over this, even ending all spending, you would need $2.7 trillion. Quit repeating your failed ideas over and over, it doesn’t make them more viable.

nope; less than half a trillion.

Not if you include those that are no longer in the employment market, those on SSI and Medicare. Also, you claim all are eligible, so newborns, eight year olds, welfare recipients, those making minimum wage, you will have over 100 million participating make almost $30,000 a year for doing nothing. Do the math and let me know how bad your numbers really are. All you have is failure and excuses.

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

the math supports my contention and not yours.

No it doesn’t and we proved it over and over again as you try to change the numbers for it to work and you can’t. Our 95 million unemployed over 16 years of age proves the plan will fail, and you set the criteria as anyone, that doesn’t include those under the age of 16 who are part of your anyone. Again, failure and excuses are all you have.

yes, they do; all You have is, conjured up, right wing fantasy.

All you have is failure and more excuses.

all you have is, nothing but the fallacy of repeal.

See, you can’t refute the numbers, just more of your failure and excuses. Thanks for confirming you are clueless about economics and people.

We have numbers; the unemployment rate times twenty-eight thousand. You assume that all those people spending all that money will have no effect on our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

the math supports my contention and not yours.

No it doesn’t and we proved it over and over again as you try to change the numbers for it to work and you can’t. Our 95 million unemployed over 16 years of age proves the plan will fail, and you set the criteria as anyone, that doesn’t include those under the age of 16 who are part of your anyone. Again, failure and excuses are all you have.

No, it doesn't. All it proves is you understand nothing about economics or positive multiplier effects or even, growing the size of the pie.

You fail to refute the numbers, nothing but failure and excuses. When the numbers don’t add up, it doesn’t matter if you are left or right, socialist or capitalist, the numbers don’t add up.

Why do you keep offering more failure and excuses?

Not sure what you mean. QE was no problem; why do you believe actually solving a socioeconomic dilemma will be worse.

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

 

[danielpalos]

sure they do. just end our wasteful and alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

How dense are you? We have been over this, even ending all spending, you would need $2.7 trillion. Quit repeating your failed ideas over and over, it doesn’t make them more viable.

nope; less than half a trillion.

Not if you include those that are no longer in the employment market, those on SSI and Medicare. Also, you claim all are eligible, so newborns, eight year olds, welfare recipients, those making minimum wage, you will have over 100 million participating make almost $30,000 a year for doing nothing. Do the math and let me know how bad your numbers really are. All you have is failure and excuses.

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

 

[Papageorgio]

No it doesn’t and we proved it over and over again as you try to change the numbers for it to work and you can’t. Our 95 million unemployed over 16 years of age proves the plan will fail, and you set the criteria as anyone, that doesn’t include those under the age of 16 who are part of your anyone. Again, failure and excuses are all you have.

No, it doesn't. All it proves is you understand nothing about economics or positive multiplier effects or even, growing the size of the pie.

You fail to refute the numbers, nothing but failure and excuses. When the numbers don’t add up, it doesn’t matter if you are left or right, socialist or capitalist, the numbers don’t add up.

Why do you keep offering more failure and excuses?

Not sure what you mean. QE was no problem; why do you believe actually solving a socioeconomic dilemma will be worse.

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

 

[Papageorgio]

How dense are you? We have been over this, even ending all spending, you would need $2.7 trillion. Quit repeating your failed ideas over and over, it doesn’t make them more viable.

nope; less than half a trillion.

Not if you include those that are no longer in the employment market, those on SSI and Medicare. Also, you claim all are eligible, so newborns, eight year olds, welfare recipients, those making minimum wage, you will have over 100 million participating make almost $30,000 a year for doing nothing. Do the math and let me know how bad your numbers really are. All you have is failure and excuses.

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

Simplifying does cost less but you are also adding several million people to the dole, that adds costs.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. All it proves is you understand nothing about economics or positive multiplier effects or even, growing the size of the pie.

You fail to refute the numbers, nothing but failure and excuses. When the numbers don’t add up, it doesn’t matter if you are left or right, socialist or capitalist, the numbers don’t add up.

Why do you keep offering more failure and excuses?

Not sure what you mean. QE was no problem; why do you believe actually solving a socioeconomic dilemma will be worse.

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

in other words, economics is not your strong suit.

Something has to happen with all of that money. What do you suppose that demographic will probably do with that capital?

 

[danielpalos]

nope; less than half a trillion.

Not if you include those that are no longer in the employment market, those on SSI and Medicare. Also, you claim all are eligible, so newborns, eight year olds, welfare recipients, those making minimum wage, you will have over 100 million participating make almost $30,000 a year for doing nothing. Do the math and let me know how bad your numbers really are. All you have is failure and excuses.

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

Simplifying does cost less but you are also adding several million people to the dole, that adds costs.

and solving for a simple poverty of money under our form of capitalism. recirculating that capital improves the efficiency of our economy.

 

[Papageorgio]

You fail to refute the numbers, nothing but failure and excuses. When the numbers don’t add up, it doesn’t matter if you are left or right, socialist or capitalist, the numbers don’t add up.

Why do you keep offering more failure and excuses?

Not sure what you mean. QE was no problem; why do you believe actually solving a socioeconomic dilemma will be worse.

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

in other words, economics is not your strong suit.

Something has to happen with all of that money. What do you suppose that demographic will probably do with that capital?

Money is fine for me, I don’t need the government to give me your money. You are the one asking for the money from me.

Take 100 million multiply by $30000 and you have your answer.

Please no more excuses for your failures.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not if you include those that are no longer in the employment market, those on SSI and Medicare. Also, you claim all are eligible, so newborns, eight year olds, welfare recipients, those making minimum wage, you will have over 100 million participating make almost $30,000 a year for doing nothing. Do the math and let me know how bad your numbers really are. All you have is failure and excuses.

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

Simplifying does cost less but you are also adding several million people to the dole, that adds costs.

and solving for a simple poverty of money under our form of capitalism. recirculating that capital improves the efficiency of our economy.

No it doesn’t. Thanks for more failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

Not sure what you mean. QE was no problem; why do you believe actually solving a socioeconomic dilemma will be worse.

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

in other words, economics is not your strong suit.

Something has to happen with all of that money. What do you suppose that demographic will probably do with that capital?

Money is fine for me, I don’t need the government to give me your money. You are the one asking for the money from me.

Take 100 million multiply by $30000 and you have your answer.

Please no more excuses for your failures.

That is how many people will be spending that money. What do you suppose will happen if people start to spend more money?

 

[danielpalos]

Most of that can be rolled into a simpler social safety net, if they don't want to apply for means tested welfare.

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

Simplifying does cost less but you are also adding several million people to the dole, that adds costs.

and solving for a simple poverty of money under our form of capitalism. recirculating that capital improves the efficiency of our economy.

No it doesn’t. Thanks for more failure and excuses.

cars have oil pumps and don't rely on trickle down.

 

[Papageorgio]

You can but it doesn’t mean it won’t take more money, simple math should cure your delusions, failure and excuses.

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

Simplifying does cost less but you are also adding several million people to the dole, that adds costs.

and solving for a simple poverty of money under our form of capitalism. recirculating that capital improves the efficiency of our economy.

No it doesn’t. Thanks for more failure and excuses.

cars have oil pumps and don't rely on trickle down.

That doesn’t change the fact you have no money to fund your robbery of the middle class. All you have is failure and excuses.

 

[Papageorgio]

Because over 100 million getting almost $30000 a year from the government means the you would be doubling the government budget. End all other programs and you would still be spending more than the current budget.

Let’s hear more failure and excuses.

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

in other words, economics is not your strong suit.

Something has to happen with all of that money. What do you suppose that demographic will probably do with that capital?

Money is fine for me, I don’t need the government to give me your money. You are the one asking for the money from me.

Take 100 million multiply by $30000 and you have your answer.

Please no more excuses for your failures.

That is how many people will be spending that money. What do you suppose will happen if people start to spend more money?

How do you fund it, to begin with? Your solution is larger than the entire government budget. No solutions from you just failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

Simplification costs less. It is a simple fact of capital life.

Simplifying does cost less but you are also adding several million people to the dole, that adds costs.

and solving for a simple poverty of money under our form of capitalism. recirculating that capital improves the efficiency of our economy.

No it doesn’t. Thanks for more failure and excuses.

cars have oil pumps and don't rely on trickle down.

That doesn’t change the fact you have no money to fund your robbery of the middle class. All you have is failure and excuses.

let's tax the rich into Heaven, and claim it is for the sake of morals.

 

[danielpalos]

People spending all that money must have some effect. What do you suppose it may be.

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

in other words, economics is not your strong suit.

Something has to happen with all of that money. What do you suppose that demographic will probably do with that capital?

Money is fine for me, I don’t need the government to give me your money. You are the one asking for the money from me.

Take 100 million multiply by $30000 and you have your answer.

Please no more excuses for your failures.

That is how many people will be spending that money. What do you suppose will happen if people start to spend more money?

How do you fund it, to begin with? Your solution is larger than the entire government budget. No solutions from you just failure and excuses.

Simplification and market share. People will opt for the convenience of a convenient income over a means tested income.

 

[Papageorgio]

You aren’t adding money, you are taking money from people who work and giving it to someone who doesn’t work. Also, what would the tax rate have to be to add $2.7 trillion into government spending?

Failure and excuses seem to be your forte.

in other words, economics is not your strong suit.

Something has to happen with all of that money. What do you suppose that demographic will probably do with that capital?

Money is fine for me, I don’t need the government to give me your money. You are the one asking for the money from me.

Take 100 million multiply by $30000 and you have your answer.

Please no more excuses for your failures.

That is how many people will be spending that money. What do you suppose will happen if people start to spend more money?

How do you fund it, to begin with? Your solution is larger than the entire government budget. No solutions from you just failure and excuses.

Simplification and market share. People will opt for the convenience of a convenient income over a means tested income.

Sorry, your numbers don’t add up otherwise it would already have been done. No socialism for all, it is a failure and full of excuses.