quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek


If you give money to an unemployed person he will spend it on clothes, or food, or get stuff done with it. All of which employs people.

If you give money to someone who has so much he can't even spend it all you do is add to inflation and the income disparity.

Money is NOT the same thing as value!

At some point, giving money to the unemployed is no longer helping them through a tight spot. At some point it becomes rewarding laziness, or setting them (and society itself) up for ultimate failure

Ohhh... so unemployment is due to laziness. That's interesting.

Of course, back in the early 1900s nobody was lazy, but later when we had the great depression in the 1930s, and everyone coincidentally started being really lazy. After the second world war people progressively stopped being lazy, and hardly anyone was lazy by the 1970s. Of course "Reaganomics" was instituted in the 1980s, which resulted in mass laziness (which was coincidental to the economies of both the USA and Europe being completely demolished). People gradually got less lazy over the years following this in the 1990s and 2000s, right up until the financial crisis of 2008, and then another bout of laziness ensued....

I always thought that unemployment was caused by poor economic performance, a lack of demand for labor, the skillset of a workforce not matching the demands of the workplace, or sometimes disability or mental health issues. But no, laziness it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

if you are referring to the link i posted----i hope you are not, because it does an excellent job of very objectively pointing out the value positions between left and right.

if you are referring to my position of wishing liberals would leave the country and go live somewhere else---this might help you understand me a bit more: liberals are the enemy and they either need to be converted, or defeated.

that said. here's another "Kool-Aid" drinker for you:

http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/22/income-inequality-is-a-problemwhen-cause

"Income Inequality Is a Problem—When Caused by Government Meddling

"Unlike market inequality, political-economic inequality is unjust and should be eliminated.

"How? By abolishing all direct and indirect subsidies; artificial scarcities, such as those created by so-called intellectual property; regulations, which inevitably burden smaller and yet-to-be-launched firms more than lawyered-up big businesses; eminent domain; and permit requirements, zoning, and occupational licensing, which all exclude competition. These interventions and more protect incumbent firms from conditions that would lower prices to consumers, create self-employment and worker-ownership opportunities, and improve bargaining conditions for wage labor."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek


If you give money to an unemployed person he will spend it on clothes, or food, or get stuff done with it. All of which employs people.

If you give money to someone who has so much he can't even spend it all you do is add to inflation and the income disparity.

Money is NOT the same thing as value!

At some point, giving money to the unemployed is no longer helping them through a tight spot. At some point it becomes rewarding laziness, or setting them (and society itself) up for ultimate failure

Ohhh... so unemployment is due to laziness. That's interesting.

Of course, back in the early 1900s nobody was lazy, but later when we had the great depression in the 1930s, and everyone coincidentally started being really lazy. After the second world war people progressively stopped being lazy, and hardly anyone was lazy by the 1970s. Of course "Reaganomics" was instituted in the 1980s, which resulted in mass laziness (which was coincidental to the economies of both the USA and Europe being completely demolished). People gradually got less lazy over the years following this in the 1990s and 2000s, right up until the financial crisis of 2008, and then another bout of laziness ensued....

I always thought that unemployment was caused by poor economic performance, a lack of demand for labor, the skillset of a workforce not matching the demands of the workplace, or sometimes disability or mental health issues. But no, laziness it is.

Had I written that unemployment is due to laziness, or if that were the gist of my post, your post might make sense

When you have to change the meaning of someones post for your rebuttal it isnt flattering to you or your position

quote:

At some point, giving money to the unemployed is no longer helping them through a tight spot. At some point it becomes rewarding laziness, or setting them (and society itself) up for ultimate failure.

quote:

Had I written that unemployment is due to laziness, or if that were the gist of my post, your post might make sense

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek


If you give money to an unemployed person he will spend it on clothes, or food, or get stuff done with it. All of which employs people.

If you give money to someone who has so much he can't even spend it all you do is add to inflation and the income disparity.

Money is NOT the same thing as value!

At some point, giving money to the unemployed is no longer helping them through a tight spot. At some point it becomes rewarding laziness, or setting them (and society itself) up for ultimate failure

Ohhh... so unemployment is due to laziness. That's interesting.

Of course, back in the early 1900s nobody was lazy, but later when we had the great depression in the 1930s, and everyone coincidentally started being really lazy. After the second world war people progressively stopped being lazy, and hardly anyone was lazy by the 1970s. Of course "Reaganomics" was instituted in the 1980s, which resulted in mass laziness (which was coincidental to the economies of both the USA and Europe being completely demolished). People gradually got less lazy over the years following this in the 1990s and 2000s, right up until the financial crisis of 2008, and then another bout of laziness ensued....

I always thought that unemployment was caused by poor economic performance, a lack of demand for labor, the skillset of a workforce not matching the demands of the workplace, or sometimes disability or mental health issues. But no, laziness it is.

Had I written that unemployment is due to laziness, or if that were the gist of my post, your post might make sense

When you have to change the meaning of someones post for your rebuttal it isnt flattering to you or your position

Hmmm...

I'm fairly new to this part of the site so I don't really have a good frame of reference for your posts, but, are you serious?!

quote:

At some point, giving money to the unemployed is no longer helping them through a tight spot. At some point it becomes rewarding laziness, or setting them (and society itself) up for ultimate failure.

Later...

quote:

Had I written that unemployment is due to laziness, or if that were the gist of my post, your post might make sense

This is the equivalent of a man putting a twig on his head and claiming he is a tree. It's there, it's visible. There is a very clear implication on your part that unemployment is due to laziness, why else would unemployment benefits "reward laziness"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

At some point


Key words, those

You changed the meaning, the gist, to always

I didnt write always

I strongly implied that unemployment insurance itself is good when I wrote that at some point it is no longer helping people through a tight spot

Get yourself some intellectual honesty, then try again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

At some point


Key words, those

You changed the meaning, the gist, to always

I didnt write always

I strongly implied that unemployment insurance itself is good when I wrote that at some point it is no longer helping people through a tight spot

Get yourself some intellectual honesty, then try again

Ohhh I see. Unemployment benefits reward a few lazy people, so in order to prevent that lets pay only a pittance in welfare payments (if any) and have anyone, even the majority of people hard on their luck, live in penury merely to get at those lazy few.

Right, my apologies, that's far more reasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I think those of us on the right know and remember this too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 trillion dollars in safe havens is not feeding the economy
its not the poor hiding their money.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

it explains so many of his posts...in all sections of this fora
you learned a new term? well done....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 trillion dollars in safe havens is not feeding the economy
its not the poor hiding their money.

Where is this $32T hiding? Is it in mattresses? Buried? Or, is it "hidden" in financial institutions? Do you know how financial institutions make money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Yes, we do disagree on that. Where we actually disagree is on the idea that capitalists are really that much different than politicians, at least on a global scale.
In the U.S. experience, capitalists have probably been worse than politicians, at least in the sense of understanding right and wrong. No capitalist ever said that slavery was wrong; it took a movement led by citizen politicians (the kind who weren't born with silver spoons in their mouths) to do that. No capitalist ever said that child labor was wrong; it took political actions to end that. It's pretty much the same story for monopolies, anti-trust, environmental regulations, workplace safety, labor rights, minimum wage, etc. - all of that had to be forced by the politicians (who had more big picture concerns to worry about), while the capitalists were kicking and screaming every step of the way.
(In the case of slavery, they fought the most devastating war in U.S. history just to prove a point about how far they're willing to go for money. That is the true face of capitalism.)

quote:

Even to this very day, capitalists are still grumbling about these things imposed upon them by "Big Gov," and their actions (such as outsourcing, offshore accounts, etc.) would imply a somewhat spiteful and retaliatory attitude towards America and its people.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, Capitalists tend to have to "answer to the people" (consumers) every day.

Yet they have call centers in India to do the actual answering.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 trillion dollars in safe havens is not feeding the economy
its not the poor hiding their money.

Where is this $32T hiding? Is it in mattresses? Buried? Or, is it "hidden" in financial institutions? Do you know how financial institutions make money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 trillion dollars in safe havens is not feeding the economy
its not the poor hiding their money.

Where is this $32T hiding? Is it in mattresses? Buried? Or, is it "hidden" in financial institutions? Do you know how financial institutions make money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

it explains so many of his posts...in all sections of this fora
you learned a new term? well done....

The term is only new to me in your trollish personal attacks, troll

Though yeah, I am learning new things all the time

But knuckledraggers like you can only troll

"DUH, FAUX NOOZE, HUNH HUNH HUNH..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 trillion dollars in safe havens is not feeding the economy
its not the poor hiding their money.

Where is this $32T hiding? Is it in mattresses? Buried? Or, is it "hidden" in financial institutions? Do you know how financial institutions make money?

Those 'financial institutions' you mention bury a lot of their money in offshore accounts and tax havens outside of the US.
That's why, as Ron said, it doesn't do the US any favours to give tax breaks or subsidies to those people.
And for the same reason, it is not benefiting the native economy in any way; it's earning its money elsewhere.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)