2024 is only a decade away -- are you a gimme, or a dim?

[T'Girl]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

I wonder how her built her "excellent work history" if she said that she it was her first job and she had "no experience" in the post before.

I possessed no prior experience in the field of being a professional driver, or making deliveries. Learning to operate the "bread trucks" in city traffic was the hardest part of the job, although usually I was just in a van.

I'd had worked at other jobs before.

[R. Star]

Yes, of course. Self-sufficiency is to be despised, if you can't find work there's always someone or something else to blame and whatever you do, don't take responsibility for your own actions and your own life. Government does that.

[Lindley]

This whole thing really isn't that complicated, I don't know why it's such a contentious point....

1) When the economy contracts, the poverty rate increases because there is less money being paid in wages.
2) When the poverty rate increases, it can cause the economy to contract because fewer people are spending money beyond the essentials (assuming they can even spend on that).
3) Due to 1 and 2, a contracting economy and increasing poverty can lead into a self-perpetuating downward spiral.
4) Due to 3, a system is needed to break this cycle and ensure those in poverty have at least a minimum amount of spending money. Government programs provide this safeguard.
5) Due to 4, taxation is necessary to offset government spending.
6) Due to 5 and the fact that an expanding poverty rate is part of the hypothetical problem, it doesn't make sense to tax the poor or the middle class who might be pushed into poverty by that taxation. There is only one group left able to bear the burden in this case: the wealthy.
7) When the economy contracts, even those who were well-off before can be negatively affected.
8) Due to 6 and 7, taxation of the wealthy to provide basic benefits to those in poverty can aid in allowing the wealthy to remain wealthy, when they might otherwise fall into the middle class or lower during an economic downturn.

What's so hard to understand? Maybe in good times the equation is different, but government social programs are not about good times: they are about mitigating how bad the bad times can get.

[T'Girl]

Lindley wrote:

---

5) Due to 4, taxation is necessary to offset government spending.

Apparently large amounts of never ending borrowing is necessary for this process as well. Borrowing to be payed back in part by people in their twenties, people too young to vote, people yet unborn. Too bad for them huh?

Live for today.

What's so hard to understand?

That anyone would think this is a good idea.

[robau]

Government social programs are about getting elected.

[R. Star]

robau wrote:

---

Government social programs are about getting elected.

Hard to beat Santa Claus in an election.

[iguana_tonante]

T'Girl wrote:

---

I possessed no prior experience in the field of being a professional driver, or making deliveries. Learning to operate the "bread trucks" in city traffic was the hardest part of the job, although usually I was just in a van.

I'd had worked at other jobs before.

So what you told first was a lie. I'm glad we agree on that.

R. Star wrote:

---

Yes, of course. Self-sufficiency is to be despised, if you can't find work there's always someone or something else to blame and whatever you do, don't take responsibility for your own actions and your own life. Government does that.

You've got nothing, don't you? Learn how to build a good argument, then come back to us.

[T'Girl]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

... it was her first job ...

So what you told first was a lie.

You really need to re-read post #14, it being my first job solely came from you.

I'm glad we agree on that.

That you're resorting to a strawman argument?

You've got nothing, don't you? Learn how to build a good argument, then come back to us.

How so? You might not agree with him, but R.Star does have his points down.

You go out the door, it's wealthy bossman's fault. You're out of work for months or years, it not because you neglected to prepare a fall back job, it's because no one will hire you for the only job you ever bothered to learn.

Because you're out of work, the rest of society has a collective obligation to send you money to live on every month. Heaven forbid you reduce your life style, move somewhere less expensive and take the night shift down at the burger hut.

If others don't wish to pony up (thru taxes), then they're the cheap ones. They're selfish. Of course you're not the selfish one for expecting their money. It's too bad if they want to retain what they earned through their own efforts, because you want a piece of it.

[iguana_tonante]

T'Girl wrote:

---

You really need to re-read post #14, it being my first job solely came from you.

So what was was your point anyway? That you changed your job fast? So again, good for you. You made it. So what about people who didn't? Fuck them?

Well, I suppose you can always round them up and put them into a "sanctuary" or something...

T'Girl wrote:

---

How so? You might not agree with him, but R.Star does have his points down.

[Long-winded emotional blather]

Talk about a strawman. "Self-sufficiency is to be despised", "someone or something else to blame", "don't take responsibility for your own actions and your own life", etc. You guy are arguing against things that nobody ever said.

[Deranged Nasat]

So, selfless service to the community for the good of the people gets a big thumbs up when we're talking about joining the military, but selfless service for the good of the people when we're talking about the rich paying money into a system intending to keep everyone at a reasonable standard of living gets the big thumbs down? If you're encouraging people to risk their physical and mental health and surrender their legal independence to be part of "something greater than themselves", why can't you encourage the wealthy and successful to surrender some of their excess money to be part of "something greater", a far lesser sacrifice indeed?

[Kestrel]

Well now, it's a simple enough equation.

Possibly shooting (brown) people = good.

Giving money to welfare queens = double-plus ungood.

[iguana_tonante]

Because rich people paying money is bad, but poor people dying is ok.

[Lindley]

T'Girl wrote:

---

Apparently large amounts of never ending borrowing is necessary for this process as well. Borrowing to be payed back in part by people in their twenties, people too young to vote, people yet unborn. Too bad for them huh?

Live for today.

That anyone would think this is a good idea.

You didn't address any of the actual logic.

[Sindatur]

Sigh, no one understands how money works with a Fiat Currency.

Yes, individuals and States must balance their budgets, too much debt/deficit is bad. However, at the Federal level, with a Fiat Currency, Debt/Deficit is not bad, it is a good thing. Look at President Clinton, who built up a Surplus, and what happened? Many want to accuse George W. Bush o squandering away the surplus, but, the obvious thing happened, Pres. Clinton's Surplus led to a recession, because a surplus in the Federal Government (With a Fiat Currency) means less money flowing through the economy. A Debt/Deficit means moremoney available to the Economy. Taxes are a means regulating the Economy, when the Economy gets hot, you need to raise taxes, to slow it down, when the economy gets too cold you need to lower taxes (to stave off inflation). If only, even the Federal Government understood money at the Federal Level

Of course Debt/deficit hurt Greece, because they don't have a Fiat Currency, so they need to operate as an individual or a State, but, with a Fiat Currency, you control the money, borrowing Debt/Deficit are simply numbers on a spreadsheet, they are absolutely meaningless, because you print all the money you want.

Government does need to provide temporary jobs and support people temporarily when times are tough, to keep times from getting tougher, and get money back into the Economy (But it's also true we have far too many lazy Welfare Queens, to quote a previous post).

I was once laid off from a $40K a year job, and had to take a temp job that was below my experience level for $10.00 an hour, no benefits, (Apartment rent rising for 3 months in a row), for an entire year, eating hotdogs and Top Ramen, while I looked for a permament job worthy of my experience. So, yea, sometimes you do have to do what you have to do. But, neither side of the debate understands Modern Monetary Theory and the correct way to use Government money, The Dems/Progessives want to be Santa Claus and The 'pubs/Conservatives want to be scrooge

When you look at panhandlers, you see us lily White folks, and you another ethnicity quite prominently, but, I have yet ever seen an Hispanic or an Aisian pan handling, they hang out at Home Depot to get day jobs, work multiple Minimum Wage jobs, or live many together or make food and trinkets to sell... They find a way to be selfsufficient until things improve (And again, if there is absolutely nothing, then yes, Government should be a safety net for them, and shold be training them for new careers that are more prevalent)

[E-DUB]

According to today's statistics, there are 2.3 job seekers for every new job. Mathematics trumps ideology.