Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[Papageorgio]

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.

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, they wouldn't. It is about equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

just your special pleading.

 

[Hal-9000]

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.

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

The middle class is rich to the poor............................

Next

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, they wouldn't. It is about equal protection of the law.

Not sure what the heck you are talking about, it has nothing to do with what I posted, again your reading comprehension seems very limited.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

just your special pleading.

I am not pleading anything, the system is already in place, you are pleading for failure and excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, they wouldn't. It is about equal protection of the law.

Not sure what the heck you are talking about, it has nothing to do with what I posted, again your reading comprehension seems very limited.

It has to do with solving simple poverty through full employment of resources in the affected markets.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

just your special pleading.

I am not pleading anything, the system is already in place, you are pleading for failure and excuses.

so what; flat earthers are still just plain wrong.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

just your special pleading.

I am not pleading anything, the system is already in place, you are pleading for failure and excuses.

so what; flat earthers are still just plain wrong.

So are global warming fanatics.

 

[danielpalos]

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

The middle class isn’t the rich, evidently your reading comprehension is part of your failure and excuses.

just your special pleading.

I am not pleading anything, the system is already in place, you are pleading for failure and excuses.

so what; flat earthers are still just plain wrong.

So are global warming fanatics.

climate change happens. why not improve our understanding structures, such that we can place human habitation most any place on or off, Earth.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, they wouldn't. It is about equal protection of the law.

Not sure what the heck you are talking about, it has nothing to do with what I posted, again your reading comprehension seems very limited.

It has to do with solving simple poverty through full employment of resources in the affected markets.

It has nothing to do with my post, if you can’t answer be honest and say so. You only respond to defend your failure and make excuses.

 

[hadit]

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.

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, they wouldn't. It is about equal protection of the law.

Not sure what the heck you are talking about, it has nothing to do with what I posted, again your reading comprehension seems very limited.

It has to do with solving simple poverty through full employment of resources in the affected markets.

It has nothing to do with my post, if you can’t answer be honest and say so. You only respond to defend your failure and make excuses.

because your posts have nothing to do with economics.

All those Persons circulating capital Must do something in our mixed-market economy; what do You suppose that will be.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

 

[hadit]

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.

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

As already has been shown, your numbers do NOT add up. There's not enough money in the budget to do what you want, and you haven't come up with a credible way to pay for it. Now, you're saying my equation is wrong. I haven't presented you with one.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No, they wouldn't. It is about equal protection of the law.

Not sure what the heck you are talking about, it has nothing to do with what I posted, again your reading comprehension seems very limited.

It has to do with solving simple poverty through full employment of resources in the affected markets.

It has nothing to do with my post, if you can’t answer be honest and say so. You only respond to defend your failure and make excuses.

because your posts have nothing to do with economics.

All those Persons circulating capital Must do something in our mixed-market economy; what do You suppose that will be.

It has everything to do with economics. Add it up and the yearly costs are well over our current budget which is going deeper into debt each year.

I can’t help it that you are a freakin moron who can’t grasp the fact that spending more than you actually have is going to cause a huge burden to the middle class when the time comes to repay.

Now if you got anything else fine but so far all your arguments are childish and not based in reality. Your idea won’t work and you are an idiot for trying to say it will. Those are the facts.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

And we have showed you over and over why your stupid equation is dead nuts wrong! Now, if you can’t show me how paying 100 million people $14 an hour is less than half a billion then you are so far off it matters not what the hell you do because you are the dumbest person on this cite.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

As already has been shown, your numbers do NOT add up. There's not enough money in the budget to do what you want, and you haven't come up with a credible way to pay for it. Now, you're saying my equation is wrong. I haven't presented you with one.

No need to, if you disagree with the moron, he hasn’t the thinking matter to figure out way and resorts to his same stupid ideas that can’t be supported, let alone the fact of how many will quit their jobs just because $14 is more than $15 after tax. He is willing to create less productive citizens than work for his own money.

These nuts that think the government owes them anything are so far off that they are beyond reasonable.

He can go try his BS in Canada or Sweden where they will still require him to work.

 

[hadit]

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. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

As already has been shown, your numbers do NOT add up. There's not enough money in the budget to do what you want, and you haven't come up with a credible way to pay for it. Now, you're saying my equation is wrong. I haven't presented you with one.

No need to, if you disagree with the moron, he hasn’t the thinking matter to figure out way and resorts to his same stupid ideas that can’t be supported, let alone the fact of how many will quit their jobs just because $14 is more than $15 after tax. He is willing to create less productive citizens than work for his own money.

These nuts that think the government owes them anything are so far off that they are beyond reasonable.

He can go try his BS in Canada or Sweden where they will still require him to work.

You are correct. His ultimate goal is to not work and still get paid.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No. You made claims that are not supported by math.

I am resorting to simple math. Your equation is wrong.

As already has been shown, your numbers do NOT add up. There's not enough money in the budget to do what you want, and you haven't come up with a credible way to pay for it. Now, you're saying my equation is wrong. I haven't presented you with one.

That is how I know your numbers are wrong.