Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

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.

In other words, you don't know what a positive multiplier is or what "growing the size of the pie" is.

Just simple economics. The right wing, won't have any of it.

 

[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.

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.

Where are you coming up with your numbers. The unemployment rate is not that high. And, some people will leave jobs and some people not working, will look for work.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The law is employment at will; not wage slavery.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Circulating capital is what matters. Only dragons hoard cash with impunity.

 

[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. 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.

That's how we know you are wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

In other words, you don't know what a positive multiplier is or what "growing the size of the pie" is.

Just simple economics. The right wing, won't have any of it.

You have provided no way for the budget to grow twice the size. Sure spending will increase tax revenue but you are claiming it will double and at best you will see 125% which is well short of your pie in the sky numbers which you still can't seem to give.

Again, more failure and excuses.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The law is employment at will; not wage slavery.

BS, that is all you have. You aren't required to work, nor are the people required to support those that choose not to work.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That's how we know you are wrong.

The current unemployment rate will do, for now. Quantum dynamics may be required. Let's tell the chics.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

In other words, you don't know what a positive multiplier is or what "growing the size of the pie" is.

Just simple economics. The right wing, won't have any of it.

You have provided no way for the budget to grow twice the size. Sure spending will increase tax revenue but you are claiming it will double and at best you will see 125% which is well short of your pie in the sky numbers which you still can't seem to give.

Again, more failure and excuses.

the point is the simplicity of full employment of resources in the market for labor; and ensuring greater liquidity in our capital markets. Adam Smith assumes such in his treatise on the Wealth of Nations.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The law is employment at will; not wage slavery.

BS, that is all you have. You aren't required to work, nor are the people required to support those that choose not to work.

The law is the law; don't be illegal to the law, right wingers. It fixes a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

That's how we know you are wrong.

The current unemployment rate will do, for now. Quantum dynamics may be required. Let's tell the chics.

So you are going to restrict who can and cannot collect unemployment? Because the unemployment rate is not what you will get unless you restrict it all and if you do restrict who can and cannot participate, then your program is as just as it was before and people making minimum wage will want to get laid off to collect their unemployment because economically it would make more sense.

So your scenario isn't what you claim you wanted.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That's how we know you are wrong.

The current unemployment rate will do, for now. Quantum dynamics may be required. Let's tell the chics.

So you are going to restrict who can and cannot collect unemployment? Because the unemployment rate is not what you will get unless you restrict it all and if you do restrict who can and cannot participate, then your program is as just as it was before and people making minimum wage will want to get laid off to collect their unemployment because economically it would make more sense.

So your scenario isn't what you claim you wanted.

Only with special pleading.

All of those people no longer working will also not be commuting. Improving our quality of life improves our general welfare.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

In other words, you don't know what a positive multiplier is or what "growing the size of the pie" is.

Just simple economics. The right wing, won't have any of it.

You have provided no way for the budget to grow twice the size. Sure spending will increase tax revenue but you are claiming it will double and at best you will see 125% which is well short of your pie in the sky numbers which you still can't seem to give.

Again, more failure and excuses.

the point is the simplicity of full employment of resources in the market for labor; and ensuring greater liquidity in our capital markets. Adam Smith assumes such in his treatise on the Wealth of Nations.

But it won't make up a doubling of the budget, at most it would 125%, so you are off on the numbers.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

The law is employment at will; not wage slavery.

BS, that is all you have. You aren't required to work, nor are the people required to support those that choose not to work.

The law is the law; don't be illegal to the law, right wingers. It fixes a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.

You are right, now you go sue the federal government for being illegal and let me know how it goes.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

That's how we know you are wrong.

The current unemployment rate will do, for now. Quantum dynamics may be required. Let's tell the chics.

So you are going to restrict who can and cannot collect unemployment? Because the unemployment rate is not what you will get unless you restrict it all and if you do restrict who can and cannot participate, then your program is as just as it was before and people making minimum wage will want to get laid off to collect their unemployment because economically it would make more sense.

So your scenario isn't what you claim you wanted.

Only with special pleading.

All of those people no longer working will also not be commuting. Improving our quality of life improves our general welfare.

So are you going to restrict who can and cannot file for unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

In other words, you don't know what a positive multiplier is or what "growing the size of the pie" is.

Just simple economics. The right wing, won't have any of it.

You have provided no way for the budget to grow twice the size. Sure spending will increase tax revenue but you are claiming it will double and at best you will see 125% which is well short of your pie in the sky numbers which you still can't seem to give.

Again, more failure and excuses.

the point is the simplicity of full employment of resources in the market for labor; and ensuring greater liquidity in our capital markets. Adam Smith assumes such in his treatise on the Wealth of Nations.

But it won't make up a doubling of the budget, at most it would 125%, so you are off on the numbers.

Some people won't want to work and open those positions for those who do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means more people will Want to work, not Have to work.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The law is employment at will; not wage slavery.

BS, that is all you have. You aren't required to work, nor are the people required to support those that choose not to work.

The law is the law; don't be illegal to the law, right wingers. It fixes a Bad moral Standard for less fortunate illegals.

You are right, no you go sue the federal government for being illegal and let me know how it goes.

I am looking into it. thanks for the recommendation.

 

[danielpalos]

That is how I know your numbers are wrong.

That's how we know you are wrong.

The current unemployment rate will do, for now. Quantum dynamics may be required. Let's tell the chics.

So you are going to restrict who can and cannot collect unemployment? Because the unemployment rate is not what you will get unless you restrict it all and if you do restrict who can and cannot participate, then your program is as just as it was before and people making minimum wage will want to get laid off to collect their unemployment because economically it would make more sense.

So your scenario isn't what you claim you wanted.

Only with special pleading.

All of those people no longer working will also not be commuting. Improving our quality of life improves our general welfare.

So are you going to restrict who can and cannot file for unemployment?

It would be based on the employment relationship in any given State.

employment at will means EDD has to prove for-cause criteria to deny or disparage benefits.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

In other words, you don't know what a positive multiplier is or what "growing the size of the pie" is.

Just simple economics. The right wing, won't have any of it.

You have provided no way for the budget to grow twice the size. Sure spending will increase tax revenue but you are claiming it will double and at best you will see 125% which is well short of your pie in the sky numbers which you still can't seem to give.

Again, more failure and excuses.

the point is the simplicity of full employment of resources in the market for labor; and ensuring greater liquidity in our capital markets. Adam Smith assumes such in his treatise on the Wealth of Nations.

But it won't make up a doubling of the budget, at most it would 125%, so you are off on the numbers.

Some people won't want to work and open those positions for those who do. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage means more people will Want to work, not Have to work.

Why would they want to work when they can stay home and not pay taxes and make the same money, your idea has serious flaws, especially considering that our government doesn't owe you money, you owe the government.

 

[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.

That is how I know your numbers are wrong.

That's a dumb thing to say.