@no1marauder saidSpending $14,000 so unreliable/ unskilled worker (and that's why they earn merely $18,000) per year is flushing money down the toilet. The recipient of the benefit worth close to 80% of their salary would complain that if the government is spending such an absurd amount of money on them why don't they receive any of the $14,000 and those who worked the job and did not need the benefit would wonder why the get nothing when others get a benefit worth close to 80% of their salary. It would literally be the symbol of liberal waste and would be enough to launch an economically conservative landslide in an election.
What on a bottle of champagne?
It's what's called an "investment". which in this case is far more likely to result in a useful societal return than more luxury items for the rich. In fact, if the program was funded by some tax that removed disincentives for economic investment and work like raising the capital gains tax to the same level as work income, it would result ...[text shortened]... more propitious economic activity than paper chasing which consumes most of the wealthy's spending.
@quackquack saidReally? I wonder why it has such overwhelming support among even Republicans. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-want-more-affordable-child-care-options-republican-voters-included-11619630948
Spending $14,000 so unreliable/ unskilled worker (and that's why they earn merely $18,000) per year is flushing money down the toilet. The recipient of the benefit worth close to 80% of their salary would complain that if the government is spending such an absurd amount of money on them why don't they receive any of the $14,000 and those who worked the job and did not nee ...[text shortened]... f liberal waste and would be enough to launch an economically conservative landslide in an election.
Very few people think like you, QQ. Most don't think over 40% of American workers are as worthless and unreliable as you do. "Unskilled" is just another way of denigrating the people who do the necessary jobs in America.
13 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidEveryone wants benefits in the abstract. No one wants to pay for them. Paying $14,000 so someone can go to a $18,000 job is completely wasteful and we'd be better off just eliminating those jobs or have a reasonable expectation like get someone else to watch your kids.
Really? I wonder why it has such overwhelming support among even Republicans. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-want-more-affordable-child-care-options-republican-voters-included-11619630948
Very few people think like you, QQ. Most don't think over 40% of American workers are as worthless and unreliable as you do. "Unskilled" is just another way of denigrating the people who do the necessary jobs in America.
@quackquack saidEliminating jobs isn't all that popular a political position to take. But I hope all right wingers are as vocal as you are in denigrating workers who provide many of the essential services in a modern economy.
Everyone wants benefits in the abstract. No one wants to pay for them. Paying $14,000 so someone can go to a $18,000 job is completely wasteful and we'd be better off just eliminating those jobs or have a reasonable expectation like get someone else to watch your kids.
As I pointed out, the cost of the program is pennies compared to GDP and the present Federal budget. And there's plenty of ways to raise revenue from those who have had their taxes cut for four decades.
13 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidIf you bothered to look it up you’d know you cannot feign a word.
Marauder seems to feign the word loser. While he looks up feign, he can look up loser, though he already knows what AvJoe means.
A better response? Tell us where this post is wrong. Dependence on government, until the those people number more than 50% of the population, will break the government.
Re your 'right wingers', quite curious, since the whole Con ...[text shortened]... eing a parasite, is a loser. Start a thread on it if you'd like, but could you respond to the post?
13 Oct 21
@mghrn55 saidTrump? Jesus Christ, y'all just can't move on. Is that you, Sonhouse? If our generals are fighting a war today, are you going to write about Eisenhower??
$7.5T was added to the debt during the Trump administration.
Maybe temper your discussion about US debt load.
It is a serious issue. But have your facts straight.
Very tiresome.
13 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidOh, so you think government should solve people's problems. I don't think that. Who thinks that? I have some problems. Who do I petition? How do they decide? Oh, and where do they get the money to solve the problems? You are aware that govt has NO money. I've asked you before, if you are a socialist, and never got an answer. Now would be a good time?
What on a bottle of champagne?
It's what's called an "investment". which in this case is far more likely to result in a useful societal return than more luxury items for the rich. In fact, if the program was funded by some tax that removed disincentives for economic investment and work like raising the capital gains tax to the same level as work income, it would result ...[text shortened]... more propitious economic activity than paper chasing which consumes most of the wealthy's spending.
13 Oct 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI'm not eliminating any jobs. If you need the government to spend $14,000 to preserve an $18,000 job, then the job simply should not exist.
Eliminating jobs isn't all that popular a political position to take. But I hope all right wingers are as vocal as you are in denigrating workers who provide many of the essential services in a modern economy.
As I pointed out, the cost of the program is pennies compared to GDP and the present Federal budget. And there's plenty of ways to raise revenue from those who have had their taxes cut for four decades.
13 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidOh, raise MORE revenue. What a dam laugh you libs are.
Eliminating jobs isn't all that popular a political position to take. But I hope all right wingers are as vocal as you are in denigrating workers who provide many of the essential services in a modern economy.
As I pointed out, the cost of the program is pennies compared to GDP and the present Federal budget. And there's plenty of ways to raise revenue from those who have had their taxes cut for four decades.
13 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidThe country has a GDP of about $20 trillion.
Oh, raise MORE revenue. What a dam laugh you libs are.
Are you seriously asserting that it can't pay $22.5 billion a year for a program that creates jobs, improves the quality of life for millions, perhaps tens of millions of American families and invests in our future?
13 Oct 21
@no1marauder saidHave you seen the news, about Dem plan to borrow $5.5T? You should look at it, you will then see how we would be pretty much maxed out, so, your fairy tale utopia can not likely be a reality. MAXED OUT, Marauder. You write like we have $20T so let's spend it on liberal programs.
The country has a GDP of about $20 trillion.
Are you seriously asserting that it can't pay $22.5 billion a year for a program that creates jobs, improves the quality of life for millions, perhaps tens of millions of American families and invests in our future?
Oh, BTW, tell us what the 'program to create jobs' is, I have not seen mention of that. Of course, I have seen promises from the dems, like when Obama said we will have 'shovel ready' jobs. I just can't trust them (you guys) again, I just can't. And even if they come to be, they will be govt jobs, which gives people little chance of moving up the ladder and making a lot money (!!)
If govt gets out the way, people can make their own jobs. I know, you are saying whaaaaaat?? Yes, be independent, that sort of thing. No government.
We know about all the empathy for people that want to live a better quality of life as you say.....Do you not think there is always a better quality of life to be attained? I do. 😛rob is, you think we need the govt to dish it out to us. I don't. You do.
Ask yourself this.....the $20T GDP? If it is so ready to be spent, why do we need to borrow $5.5T?
13 Oct 21
@averagejoe1 saidYou guys are talking about rising debt.
Trump? Jesus Christ, y'all just can't move on. Is that you, Sonhouse? If our generals are fighting a war today, are you going to write about Eisenhower??
Very tiresome.
That opens the door to mention where some of that has come from.
You don't get to whine when Trump's name comes up.
And ok, some fair play.
Debt went up $8T under Obama.
But that was over 8 years, not 4.
And much of that debt was due to 2008 crash.
Debt under Trump was up $7.5T in 4 years.
But in fairness to Trump, COVID played a big role in that.
But don't whine every time Trump's name comes up.
Every time you guys start something on Biden, there is no shortage of rebuttal material out there.
And debates are all about rebuttal.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
13 Oct 21
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidThey do not have people like Bezos, Tesla and Trump paying no taxes.
Many of you mention Democracy,, Like, do you want to lose it, we love it, whatever.
Here is what I think: Democracy is designed to collapse. Be careful what you wish for. If the majority can vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, the Treasury will go bankrupt. It is impossible to have a society where the majority of people contribute nothing and expect everything. ...[text shortened]... lar, and the losers will want more, it will never be enough. At that magic moment, it will collapse.
We are the only (western) country without these 'give aways' you mention.
\..Seems to work well for most of the civilized countries
13 Oct 21
@AverageJoe1
Maybe only 'tiresome' to you but deadly serious threat to our democracy to us.
WE DON"T FORGET.
NEVER.