Ah yes, eternal moochers Con always upset about 'giving' away money but not a peep when he is mooching off from them.
You have to love liberal economics.
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Ah yes, eternal moochers Con always upset about 'giving' away money but not a peep when he is mooching off from them.
Economically there is no difference, economy doesn't care if money being injected into the economy is worked for or is borrowed as long as factors like inflation are accounted for.
You may be right...I think the military is nothing more than subsidized welfare that needs to be scaled back 90% for instance
Yes the economy does care, go ask venezuela how much it cares, if you think that the people working at the bottom for 12k a year are going to keep working if it gets handed to them you have your head up your ass, there is a monster distinction here.
Taxes only get paid once someone has worked to accumulate them, handing someone money for sitting on their ass requires the person to do nothing, and encourages them to keep on doing nothing.
Venezuela didn't practice the policy you posted about, it's problems are entirely different - an economy dependent on oil prices with political instability. What has Venezuela got to do with what you posted? Why not bring up Norway or Denmark or host of liberal European countries? Doesn't fit the narrative?
In fact, countries like Norway and Finland have forms of universal income, are they collapsing? Problem with you is that you are unable to argue a policy on its merits, you have to rely on bad and extreme examples to make your case.
Also, the amount in consideration is small, nobody can retire on 12 grand a year and live a decent life style, unless you are talking about the poor and destitute who won't be desperate enough to work shit jobs.
Lastly, the policy in question is an economic one, you are trying to argue against evidence because of ideology. Does the advocated policy stimulate the economy. Either something works or it doesn't, what's the point of rejecting evidence.
LOL, yeah Venezuelas collapse had to do with fucking oil prices, you accuse other people of being dumb, this is bar none the stupidest thing ive read on ET and you are parroting it, have fun man.
Funny how dictatorships like Saudi Arabia survived, canada survived, Denmark which is socialist survived, theres only one common theme in Venezuelas collapse and its communism, everyone knows it except the far left rabid nutjobs unwilling to admit it.
Every time Communism collapses its not communisms fault, lol.
From FORBES
"Venezuela's GDP has dropped 35%, and GDP per capita rates are down 40%. Sunken oil prices are a main factor in Venezuela's economic collapse, and both events are as bad as any in recent history."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2017/11/05/venezuelas-oil-problems-abound/#3621e3066104
Now Forbes is communist?
Who is the stupid one now?
Saudi Arabia's economy has been in the doldrums, there were riots, may want to read the news. Only reason they 'survived' is because they have been saving up for a while
By this logic, the reason Ireland's economy collapsed was because of conservatism? As I said, Cons are prone to low effort thinking. Communism means collapse except when it comes to China. Socialism bad except all the thriving Socialist countries. No context, no subtlety.
Jesus Christ.
Can you make even dumber arguments?
So Detroit is bad because of 'Democrat' control while entire red states are engulfed by meth and poverty.
What an insanely dumb retort.
Maybe because running 20 min and drinking 8 glasses of water is good and smart and right.
While giving thousands in unearned income is not.
Fuck you are dumb.