Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[Papageorgio]

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.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

So if you are restricting then your idea isn't worth a crap, if you aren't restricting then you will blow up the budget, which means it isn't worth a crap.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

All those people not commuting at the same time as you. Plenty of cost savings potential. Some people are losing money working, anyway.

 

[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 a dumb thing to say.

not as dumb as yours.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So if you are restricting then your idea isn't worth a crap, if you aren't restricting then you will blow up the budget, which means it isn't worth a crap.

self-selection is the capital key. only the right wing is for socialism on a national basis and then refuse to pay for it. Vandals.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

So if you are restricting then your idea isn't worth a crap, if you aren't restricting then you will blow up the budget, which means it isn't worth a crap.

self-selection is the capital key. only the right wing is for socialism on a national basis and then refuse to pay for it. Vandals.

LOL! More failure and excuses, you have nothing else.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

Nope, your butt being thrown out of court.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So if you are restricting then your idea isn't worth a crap, if you aren't restricting then you will blow up the budget, which means it isn't worth a crap.

self-selection is the capital key. only the right wing is for socialism on a national basis and then refuse to pay for it. Vandals.

LOL! More failure and excuses, you have nothing else.

the right wing simply don't believe in Capitalism, that is all.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

Nope, your butt being thrown out of court.

I already know my argument is the most supreme.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

Nope, your butt being thrown out of court.

I already know my argument is the most supreme.

Is that why you haven't taken it to court? When you win your court case, I'll talk about it further, first win the court case, because you have nothing but talk.

 

[hadit]

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.

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

 

[hadit]

I am looking into it. thanks for the recommendation.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

Nope, your butt being thrown out of court.

I already know my argument is the most supreme.

Is that why you haven't taken it to court? When you win your court case, I'll talk about it further, first win the court case, because you have nothing but talk.

And fallacy.

 

[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.

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.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

 

[danielpalos]

I am looking into it. thanks for the recommendation.

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

Nope, your butt being thrown out of court.

I already know my argument is the most supreme.

Is that why you haven't taken it to court? When you win your court case, I'll talk about it further, first win the court case, because you have nothing but talk.

you don't have a better argument.

 

[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 a dumb thing to say.

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Good deal, I'm sure you will get the answer that we all know you will get.

better management through equal protection of the law?

Nope, your butt being thrown out of court.

I already know my argument is the most supreme.

Is that why you haven't taken it to court? When you win your court case, I'll talk about it further, first win the court case, because you have nothing but talk.

And fallacy.

just right wing projection.

 

[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.

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.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

 

[hadit]

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.

not as dumb as yours.

Now you're just getting juvenile. Your numbers don't add up, but instead of admitting you're wrong, you just double down. That's dumb.

Solving simple poverty improves the efficiency of our economy and engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

You're again ignoring several things:

1. We don't have enough money to do that.
2. You're taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who would spend it. No gain there.

 

[hadit]

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.

The actual unemployment of the country is a lot higher than the unemployment rate. Learn your subject then let’s talk.

It would be around the minimum wage. You make it seem like full employment would be Bad. Why insist on a work ethic from the Age of Iron, if you prefer a profiteering, natural rate of unemployment; so you can whine about poor people being lazy.

The bottom line remains, you want permanent access to the fruits of others' labor without demonstrating need.

Just be honest and say you want to be on welfare so you can spend your days smoking pot.