• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Watch Democrat reporters argue to pay the workers more to not work

Robertinfremont said:
If this post is what you accused me of ignoring, I recall writing a reply.

I am not speaking as a politician. I speak to Americans from my heart trying to assist them out of poverty. I want them to have hope the Democrats got it wrong by condemning them to a life of poverty. I think the republican party as a group also wants all in this nation out of poverty. Democrats use them as a voting block. I want them to enjoy life.

I need to walk daily don't I? My doctor says to walk daily for 2 miles. I am lousy at following that advice. But I know better.

When Democrats condemn the poor to a life of poverty, how does that help them?

I offer concrete and proven suggestions.

So why defend poverty?
Click to expand...

I can't even right now. The desultory writing style is indicative of an adolescent. I refuse to believe this is an adult. Someone get their child off the Internet, please.
 
Vadinho said:
Where in the world did you get the idea that Democrats condemn the poor to a life of poverty? My lord, do you know the history of poverty legislation across the last century? Lets follow your logic then. Before the New Deal, no poverty legislation existed for all intents and purposes. That era was your utopia it seems. The poor were poor or they bought houses to rent out like you did. After the New Deal, the poor got subsidies, we initiated SS and labor laws were made to benefit the worker. All Democratic programs. Hell, we even did the GI bill to lift the poor veteran and their families out of poverty. Then LBJ came along, did even more for blacks and poor white people in Appalachia. And you say all this condemned the poor to a lifetime of poverty? This is so whacked out I can't even follow the logic.

BTW, my daughter went to College of Idaho and I know your area. Boise is probably the most liberal place in Idaho, nice town.
Click to expand...

(bolding mine)

Good post, but it is wasted on him. You're responding to someone who, based on his or her posts, has a tenuous grasp of the English language. You can't follow the logic, eh? Exactly. You can't follow something that was never there to begin with.
 
Vadinho said:
Where in the world did you get the idea that Democrats condemn the poor to a life of poverty? My lord, do you know the history of poverty legislation across the last century? Lets follow your logic then. Before the New Deal, no poverty legislation existed for all intents and purposes. That era was your utopia it seems. The poor were poor or they bought houses to rent out like you did. After the New Deal, the poor got subsidies, we initiated SS and labor laws were made to benefit the worker. All Democratic programs. Hell, we even did the GI bill to lift the poor veteran and their families out of poverty. Then LBJ came along, did even more for blacks and poor white people in Appalachia. And you say all this condemned the poor to a lifetime of poverty? This is so whacked out I can't even follow the logic.

BTW, my daughter went to College of Idaho and I know your area. Boise is probably the most liberal place in Idaho, nice town.
Click to expand...

Look, poverty is today? Extremely low Mid range or high range? Frankly when I read studies saying the typical american family has less than $2,000 in the bank, I spot trouble.

Examine my mission in posting about this topic,. To promote thinking your way out of poverty. It can be done. Why resist helping the poor?

I voted for Johnson so blame me for him being president. But that man hurt the cause of blacks a hell of a lot. Why did we have low black problems prior to him being president only to see it go wild later on? Riots in many cities in fact and he was dead by then.

i actually have promoted the idea that Government by using teachers in school can educate kids out of poverty. But not the way they now do it. They must enforce goal setting and teach sound planning. It works. i know it works since I installed such systems at my own business and saw the magic of thinking big.
 
Huey Freeman said:
(bolding mine)

Good post, but it is wasted on him. You're responding to someone who, based on his or her posts, has a tenuous grasp of the English language. You can't follow the logic, eh? Exactly. You can't follow something that was never there to begin with.
Click to expand...

I propose no harm fall to anybody. But your dismissal is wrong. Are you a university teacher. For those types, I can vastly elevate my English. Can you though?
 
Huey Freeman said:
I can't even right now. The desultory writing style is indicative of an adolescent. I refuse to believe this is an adult. Someone get their child off the Internet, please.
Click to expand...

Well, soon you will be another to fall off this forum radar. When they weed out those types, they leave with no whimper. Right off the bat you lash out using insults and taunts.

If you wish to hang with us, try sticking to the topic rather than the poster.
 
Vadinho said:
Where in the world did you get the idea that Democrats condemn the poor to a life of poverty? My lord, do you know the history of poverty legislation across the last century? Lets follow your logic then. Before the New Deal, no poverty legislation existed for all intents and purposes. That era was your utopia it seems. The poor were poor or they bought houses to rent out like you did. After the New Deal, the poor got subsidies, we initiated SS and labor laws were made to benefit the worker. All Democratic programs. Hell, we even did the GI bill to lift the poor veteran and their families out of poverty. Then LBJ came along, did even more for blacks and poor white people in Appalachia. And you say all this condemned the poor to a lifetime of poverty? This is so whacked out I can't even follow the logic.

BTW, my daughter went to College of Idaho and I know your area. Boise is probably the most liberal place in Idaho, nice town.
Click to expand...

I returned to this same post to dig deeper into the problems you have.

First I know a heck of a lot about the Depression and FDR. FDR was my president when I was a child. I recall him speaking.

We children got free milk daily at the local school. War was on everybody's mind at that point. Where I lived then it was a very heavy into WW2 economy. I saw the military daily at times. Not all the time but often.

I don't blame you for condemning the poor, but the party.

Do you recall how Jesus taught the poor how to live? But that comment is not due to religion. I recall that old story is all. If you fish for a man, he eats the fish and retires early. If he learns to fish, he can live forever catching his own fish. I try to comment how people can actually prosper. I see nothing wrong with that. I catch hell on this from Democrats. Then they wonder why they get blamed.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I returned to this same post to dig deeper into the problems you have.

First I know a heck of a lot about the Depression and FDR. FDR was my president when I was a child. I recall him speaking.

We children got free milk daily at the local school. War was on everybody's mind at that point. Where I lived then it was a very heavy into WW2 economy. I saw the military daily at times. Not all the time but often.

I don't blame you for condemning the poor, but the party.

Do you recall how Jesus taught the poor how to live? But that comment is not due to religion. I recall that old story is all. If you fish for a man, he eats the fish and retires early. If he learns to fish, he can live forever catching his own fish. I try to comment how people can actually prosper. I see nothing wrong with that. I catch hell on this from Democrats. Then they wonder why they get blamed.
Click to expand...

Brother where art thou? My lord, you are beyond reason at this point. Maybe I can get something out of this conversation. Do you ever fish the Owyhee? Love that river. Any news on its recovery?
 
Huey Freeman said:
This would be a good point if we weren't in an emergency. But, when 3 million people lose their job in ONE WEEK, you need to keep the economy afloat and piddling over a few hundred dollars is ridiculous. First, unemployment benefits last 6 months. This deserves repeating. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LAST 26 WEEKS, THEY ARE NOT PERMANENT. Do you really think someone is gonna say "Gee, I quit my job 6 years ago because I made twice as much in unemployment. Since unemployment, I refused to get a new job; therefore, I've been unemployed for 5.5 years since." No one denies themselves a job because they once had generous unemployment (or even employment) benefits. Second, there is a national emergency. Lastly, cash payments increase the multiplier effect which increases revenue to businesses and tax revenue to the State and Federal government. Keep in mind that you have 3 million people out of work. A portion of these people have lost health insurance during a pandemic and Trump won't re-open Obamacare. Without these extra cash payments, how the hell do you expect anyone to pay to go to the doctor? This is why the pandemic will be with for a long, long, long time. Other countries have national healthcare so when people are sick, they have an incentive to get treated. I have family members who, unfortunately, because they are poor, would spread the disease around because they can't afford or unwilling to pay upwards to $250 urgent care or $500 emergency room deductible. Conservatives cannot handle emergencies because they are prone to conspiracy theories, innuendo, and half-truths; it's the reason why you have a bunch of people clamoring for an anti-parasitic drug to treat a viral infection. The idiocy knows no bounds and this forum is a raging forest fire of ignorance that no amount truth can extinguish. I'll never understand how the liberals here have the patience to explain things to you people.
Click to expand...

What you describe pretty well is also known as the velocity of money concept. Speed up the velocity and the Feds collect more taxes and it costs the public less per person.

Democrats need to understand that this is precisely what Bush did and so has Trump prior to the emergency. Speed up the velocity is the ticket.

What is Velocity of Money?
The velocity of money is a measurement of the rate at which money is exchanged in an economy. It is the number of times that money moves from one entity to another. It also refers to how much a unit of currency is used in a given period of time. Simply put, it's the rate at which consumers and businesses in an economy collectively spend money. The velocity of money is usually measured as a ratio of gross domestic product (GDP) to a country's M1 or M2 money supply.

Velocity of Money Definition
 
Vadinho said:
Brother where art thou? My lord, you are beyond reason at this point. Maybe I can get something out of this conversation. Do you ever fish the Owyhee? Love that river. Any news on its recovery?
Click to expand...

Look, despite your taunts I shall revert to discussing fishing. I still to this date have no fishing license. I eat fish that others caught.

See you do not explain a counterpoint to me, you harp on what I say. Perhaps when that is done to you, you recover. I simply want to post to help citizens.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Look, despite your taunts I shall revert to discussing fishing. I still to this date have no fishing license. I eat fish that others caught.

See you do not explain a counterpoint to me, you harp on what I say. Perhaps when that is done to you, you recover. I simply want to post to help citizens.
Click to expand...

what exactly is there to counter? right wing gibberish? if I wanted to listen to Rush or Levin I would. Somewhere along your ride in life, likely starting in 80 when you voted for Raygun you went over to the dark side. By now there is no cure, its all just so much bull.
 
Robertinfremont said:
This is why Democrats are not good for America. Politicians I mean. The public can learn and change. But can the politicians change. They fight the Republicans to pay workers far more to not work than to work on their jobs. A shame I tell you.
Click to expand...

Plus they want men/boys to shut up and step back and sit down....

THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!









barf
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
Why did we have low black problems prior to him being president only to see it go wild later on? Riots in many cities in fact and he was dead by then.
Click to expand...

It rather sounds like you're asking a question similar to: why don't the Indians just stay on their reservations? The bolded "we" denotes people like you--and if you're the person in your avatar picture, that'd be white people. White people didn't have very many problems from black people before LBJ because white people were enjoying the success (if so such an absolute atrocity could be called) of having enslaved, disenfranchised, murdered, and impoverished black people for some three centuries. However, during that whole time, black people were having all kinds of problems--white people just didn't notice them much.

Rather than see those riots as what they were: a wake-up call that should be heeded, people such as yourself have chosen to see them as "black problems," meaning only problems with blacks that white people noticed--problems that black people were suddenly causing white people.
 
Napoleon said:
Graham makes a good point. Why should anyone be paid more in unemployment benefits than they earned while employed?
Click to expand...

Does the work "temporary" mean anything??

Graham is an ass.
 
Moonglow said:
I don't understand why we have to pay him when he doesn't work which is about 1/3 of the year.
Click to expand...

.............and we have a WINNER!! They should all take a damn pay cut. They get like 33 weeks vacation a year.
 
Greenbeard said:
You know this bill is also just giving everyone under $99K ($198K for couples) a check, right? The point is to give people money they didn't earn. The whole frame you're approaching this from is completely off.

Slightly more generous UI for the lowest paid workers is the least of your worries if you object to the entire concept of a stimulus package.
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason they are doing it is OBVIOUSLY because people CANNOT work to earn any money. You know that for a fact.
 
Bullseye said:
Why do you ask stupid questions? No one is going to go broke based on the UI rates in the bill, BUT, the rates should make it worthwhile to go back to work as some as possible instead of milking the system for the most possible.
Click to expand...

You know this how?? Can i see your crystal ball?? One hell of a lot of people will go broke.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Robert thinks American workers should not get unemployment benefits. Without those checks, millions of people who lost their jobs will drop below the poverty line.
Click to expand...

If they aren't already.
 
Robertinfremont said:
As an Employer, I paid those benefits for the workers. So it was a gift to them. They never earned any of it. I also donated to them health benefits. Never did my employees so much as pick up the cost I paid for utilities.

However that may be, you must prove I said what you said I said.
Click to expand...

They worked for you - judging by your attitude, I'm betting they earned every single penny.
 
Blue Donkey said:
The ONLY reason they are doing it is OBVIOUSLY because people CANNOT work to earn any money. You know that for a fact.
Click to expand...

Should I tell whoppers about you as you do to me? Say you make up things?
 
jghiretire said:
What exactly do you expect them to do?? Starve?? Die?? What??
Click to expand...

Starve or die? What are you discussing? If you mean the people who lost jobs, do what Trump did and hand them a lot of money.
 
jghiretire said:
.............and we have a WINNER!! They should all take a damn pay cut. They get like 33 weeks vacation a year.
Click to expand...

Your Democrats in congress make $476 per day, rain or shine, vacation or not.
 
jghiretire said:
You know this how?? Can i see your crystal ball?? One hell of a lot of people will go broke.
Click to expand...
Then they were on their way to going broke before this all happened.
 
Both the wife and daughter filed for unemployment in the last three weeks. They each got their notices from the state on how much they would receive. Four months total, half pay without the 600 bucks a week the Feds granted. Daughter just got her first payment, no Fed dollars, just the state dollars. So someone tell me how anyone is supposed to survive on half pay without that 600 bucks supplemental. If you say that is too much, tell it to them when both the unemployment runs out and the supplemental runs out and we are still in lockdown. Sorry but the money the Feds is granting is money well spent to keep millions upon millions of us in homes, paying car loans and insurance and feeding themselves. Do any of you really think my family will stop working once we open up the economy again? What world do you live in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom