WHY WORK ?

It takes taxpayer money to pay for the 80 plus overlapping welfare programs and more money to pay the 1.0323 TRILLION dollars spent on welfare , MORE than SS , Medicare , or Defense !!! Buy that bumper stinker !

 

what a coincidence; it takes good business management to keep making more money in the private sector as well, unless we need to bailout capitalism.

 

With your solutions we won't even have a car or bumper to put anything on .

 

Bankrupt First ; Vallejo, then Stockton, then Mammoth Lakes, and now San Bernardino and soon possibly Compton ,Fresno , and Oakland ALL unwilling to rein in the costs of benefits !

 

California spend in excess of 25 BILLION annually to fight crime and
these costs are growing at an average annual rate of about 10 percent during the past ten years.

 

Why do you believe that? Promoting the general welfare implies market friendliness, with our Commerce Clause. Public policies should generate a positive multiplier effect to be an investment in the general welfare.

 

I sometimes question the legality of any federal jurisdiction over any Organ of any State regarding the subject of "bankruptcies"; they shouldn't exist for Organs of a State since a State has a Obligation to pay its debts regardless of the solvency of any Organ of the State.

 

I am not sure I believe you. In any Case, our Second Amendment specifically enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.

Why do you believe capitalists on the right, prefer public policies where they can invest on a for-profit basis, even if at the expense of Individual Liberty.

 

What is the correct amount YOU have on your calculating pad ? It appears there is very little you believe .

 

In any Case, our Second Amendment specifically enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State. Why do you believe we need to spend the amounts we do?

 

answer ; ACLU

 

Define natural rate of unemployment.

 

You might have missed this other parts of the constitution that discussed the common defense.

 

What I assume he is referring to is the idea of an optimal unemployment rate. Liberal economists generally say 3% is optimal. Conservative economists usually say more around 5%. Everybody agrees that 0% isn't actually a good thing. At 0%, wages shoot up and you have people working who really shouldn't be working at the moment, for example, because they have mental health or substance abuse problems that they should be focusing on instead. Liberal economists prefer slightly lower numbers because they generally want wages to be higher than conservative economists do.

 

that doesn't explain why you believe that is the case; a civil liberties union should be helping with our civil liberties.

 

It has already been defined.

It is why we need socialism to bail out capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I didn't. The common Defense is not the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree to disagree. The Fed has more to work with, with any rate of inflation and, now it is possible for gains in productivity to reduce inflationary tendencies.

Wages should go higher and only those wanting to work should be working.

 

YOU repeat we have a Commerce Clause. public policies ,Capitalism, social worth , employment at will, representatives to Government, federal doctrine and State laws, and all have been around longer than YOU , yet the problem is still exists ,explain how is this possible ?
What real steps do YOU have to correct our problem? Do you have plan? Hope there are at least twenty steps! To date no one has a plan that comes close to working. GIVE me your SOP that escapes all in charge. Please begin with step 1 .

 

I can't explain WHY we spend the ungodly amount of money on civil liberties NOR , to I see the need to , but we do . Why do we spend all that taxpayer money ?

 

You keep saying this cheap talking point, without expanding or validating it.

Say what you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mean, and mean what you say so we can have a valid and objective discussion.

I am starting to believe that you just like to read what you wrote, and have no interest in actually having a discussion.

I suppose our actions in Europe during WWII were offensive in nature too since we were attacked by Japan?

Protecting our allies is a defensive jester. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia included.

Simply because you think that the money could have been better invested here at home doesn't make the wars unjust.

 

Sorry he is too busy channeling .

 

Yeah, I generally agree with that. I'm a liberal, so I am generally more interested in seeing more of the money flow to employees rather than owners. But, even so, we don't actually want 0%. To actually hit zero, you would need to have a ton of unfilled jobs at all times so that whenever anybody started looking for a job, they could find one that same day. IMO 3% or maybe even 2% is probably a better balance.

 

Have you been missing the point the whole time? It is about Commerce, a recognized federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will; and solving simple poverty on an at-will basis through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our republic.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure what you are referring to; a warfare-state requires greater use of command economics. A welfare-state can rely on markets that conform to our Commerce Clause.

- - - Updated - - -

The common Defense is enumerated in our supreme law of the land, the common offense and general warfare are not. It really is that simple.

 

You certainly are a great dancer !

 

I still agree to disagree; why not encourage those with the most capital to seek the most gains from productivity since we don't all actually have to work.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you, but I don't dance.

 

What would you label the fancy two step you do ? I can save you years , when a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it ,IT DOES MAKE A NOISE !