Originally Posted by Odin

The Rich should "support" the rest because they exploit the rest, IMO.

The "RICH" become rich because they provide goods and services other want. IOW, buyers and sellers "exploit" each other.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes they do. It's called a dividend check. Where does he get this stuff?

You're not seriously comparing a 'minimum income' program with getting a return on your personal investment, are you?

I am comparing sitting on your a$$ doing nothing from a dividend check to a 'minimum income' check. (Paris Hilton never worked a day in her life.) Both "programs" require the government to function.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Yes they do. It's called a dividend check. Where does he get this stuff?

They get the dividend check because their investment makes the business run, which creates wealth. Sheesh.

And who gave them that money to invest with? Or should we just return to castles and landed gentry? Do you not choose to use your brain at all?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

THE RICH have the right to wjhatever money they earn. As Kiff might say, that's enjoying the fruits of one's labors.

If you think that parasitizing workers is "earning the fruits of one's labor" you it's no use arguing with you.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Left wing boiler plate passed on greed, envy and fear. If money won elections, the Donkeys would have won in Nevada.

Again, the socialist always talks of materialistic greed, but never notices that they're the ones who are its biggest advocates.




No, its based on Europes poor rates of job creation.

Blue states, too.



Savings and investments provide the capital to make good jobs possible. The American worker is several times more efficient than a Chinese worker, and current American workers are several times more productive than those of 100 years ago. That's not because their stronger or faster, or more "skilled" and running a machine than earlier workers or the Chinese, but because of capital investments.



THE RICH have the right to wjhatever money they earn. As Kiff might say, that's enjoying the fruits of one's l;abors.

THE POOR got by long before the destructive welfare system.

These are just lies. Waht a greed head. You are on my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

One wonders what your definition of "work your ass off" might be.

And using the word "Damn" doesn't make your argument any less weak.

I mean many of these people work 2, or even 3 jobs to make ends meet, and yet still have to take advantage of food pantries.

Nobody should have to work more than 40 hours a week to survive. It is unjust. It is cruel. It is immoral.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I am comparing sitting on your a$$ doing nothing from a dividend check to a 'minimum income' check. (Paris Hilton never worked a day in her life.) Both "programs" require the government to function.

Of which to function requires able bodied individuals working or any individual investing in it, of which said sponge earning minimum income to do nothing but keep couch warm does neither. As a great writer said..TANSTAAFL.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I am comparing sitting on your a$$ doing nothing from a dividend check to a 'minimum income' check. (Paris Hilton never worked a day in her life.) Both "programs" require the government to function.

Of which to function requires able bodied individuals working or any individual investing in it, of which said sponge earning minimum income to do nothing but keep couch warm does neither. As a great writer said..TANSTAAFL.

Sorry. Fail to see your logic. Did you understand what I wrote?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Sorry. I fail to see your logic. Did you understand what I wrote?

Sure I did. You went off on a bizarre tangent and I brought it back where it belonged.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Sorry. Fail to see your logic. Did you understand what I wrote?

Sure I did. You went off on a bizarre tangent and I brought it back where it belonged.

There's no bizarre tangent. Tell me what it is you think I wrote (and how that was tangential) and then maybe we can figure out what your reply was trying mean.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

So say you and Many Monkey Turds. That's why even progressives here think you're a joke.



-I'm not the one pushing for Weimar Part II.
Thanks for wasting my time.

Usually with the ignorant and closed-minded, we first get the 'US is going to go bankrupt!' and the "US has to get its financial house in order just like any family or business!'

Once those myths are exposed for being totally asinine (just ask the former CEO of the S&P Rating Agency), then we move on to "hyperinflation is just around the corner!", "you're turning us into Zimbabwe and the Weimer Republic!; or "our dollars are toilet paper!"

And once those idiocies are shown for what they are, then we start to get the meek, "oh there will be inflation" - you know, the run of the mill kind.

And when that too is shown to be the myopic unsupported thought that can be held by only the ignorant, then we finally get to your gnashing of teeth and the "many monkey turds."

Not one rational, logical or fact-based counter-argument out of the lot of you from the Right - you are all mental midgets.

But given how fast you got to "many monkey turds,” your cowardliness puts you at the head (or is it the butt?) of that shameful sub-group of the mentally challenged that don't even dare to take me on.

Wallace, the Coward-hearted, indeed.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

There's no bizarre tangent. Tell me what it is you think I wrote (and how that was tangential) and then maybe we can figure out what your reply was trying mean.

I have a better idea. Why don't you explain why you see no distinction between an investor earning a rate of return and someone who freeloads on this hypothetical silly'minimum income' idea other than apparently they sit on the couch doing so?

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

There's no bizarre tangent. Tell me what it is you think I wrote (and how that was tangential) and then maybe we can figure out what your reply was trying mean.

I have a better idea. Why don't you explain why you see no distinction between an investor earning a rate of return and someone who freeloads on this hypothetical silly'minimum income' idea other than apparently they sit on the couch doing so?

Alright. I'm not playing games with you. I answered that question already in my previous post. And then you came back with this incomprehensible response. I asked you if you understood what I wrote and you said you did but refuse to say what it is. Hutch, sweetie, when you are ready to engage in a discussion, let me know. But I really don't have time for this. I got better things to do. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Just a thought, but couldn't perpetually extending unemployment benefits be a form of welfare? There is a thought that a number of people who would otherwise get jobs ..don't..because UI benefits pay more.

So let's drastically cut back on the need for unemployment benefits as well as food stamps, housing assistance, and the rest of the safety net by giving people jobs!

I think anyone who is able to work, and isn’t in some temporary transition to a better job situation, would be extremely happy to be actually employed rather than relying on the safety net. This is pretty much borne out by psychologists and sociologists.

For much less than the 2009 Stimulus package, we could put everyone willing and able to work back on the employment rolls – and that definition goes far beyond what govt statistics identify as “full employment.”

As with the 2009 Stimulus, there would be no discernable cost - no tax increases would be necessary; no inflation would result; and no change in interest rates.

The "transition jobs program" would pay a living wage and that would stabilize prices by putting a floor under wages - labor would be the resource stock like what the gold bugs want gold to be. Aggregate demand would rise substantially and therefore our economy would flourish and be sustainable because it would be based on work rather than high finance.

There is no shortage of work to be done. There are teaching, fire fighting, and police jobs that are needed but for the lack of funds; there are people qualified to fill those jobs but that are currently unemployed. All of those jobs, particularly teachers, could benefit from assistants that could be employed. There is substantial shortages of workers in the medical field including home care and nursing assistants that could be filled by people currently unemployed that would really rather be working. The list of jobs needed for work that is not getting done IN THIS COUNTRY is nearly uncountable.

This is not serfdom. With everyone willing and able to work is working, then the private sector will have to offer wages above living wage to attract these workers. When the economy gets going, then they can hire people away from the transition jobs program. When the business cycle turns down, these people risk being let go but rather than going to the unemployment line, they keep working as part of the transition jobs program.

This is not rocket science. This is about people (like Wallace the Coward-Hearted and his ilk) putting aside their ignorance of a monetary sovereign system and putting aside their political ranting and ravings to actually get to some pragmatic solutions.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I have a better idea. Why don't you explain why you see no distinction between an investor earning a rate of return and someone who freeloads on this hypothetical silly'minimum income' idea other than apparently they sit on the couch doing so?

Sitting on your ass collecting dividends = sitting on your ass
Sitting on your ass collecting silly minimum income = sitting on your ass

A person collecting an ass-sitting income spending money in the economy = money circulating in the economy while doing nothing. They are quite the same. I don't know why anyone assumes that dividends paid to an individual assumes money invested in a productive way. It is quite possible that those dividends represent profits "earned" from laying of 1000's of people.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

This is not just RW thinking, its thinking prevalent among a high majority. And not all poor people are evil and lazy. Some are, but some just hit a rough patch and need help for a short time. I have no problem with some type of Works program that was done during the last Great Depression. In fact I think that would be a great idea these days.

But its simply absurd for the government to pay able bodied people to do absolutely nothing.

Hey, I didn't see this before my post above.

We are coming from different directions but converging to the same point - perhaps there's hope.

Maybe it’s just a matter of education – and putting the cowards aside.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Sitting on your ass collecting dividends = sitting on your ass
Sitting on your ass collecting silly minimum income = sitting on your ass

A person collecting an ass-sitting income spending money in the economy = money circulating in the economy while doing nothing. They are quite the same. I don't know why anyone assumes that dividends paid to an individual assumes money invested in a productive way. It is quite possible that those dividends represent profits "earned" from laying of 1000's of people.

LOL! That first part was pretty funny Aramea. Thanks for that.

The second half is likely often true as is the possibility that there are those able to work but choose not to - although it is hard for me to imagine many for the latter when you take into account mental illness - and sure a great deal of that may have been caused by illegal use of drugs, but it is what it is - I choose not to turn away from it.

I'm just wondering can we ever push past this. I mean if we found a path (and I believe MMT offers that path), would we still remain so divided in our basic assumptions, our visions, of "the other" that we will never purposefully and collectively achieve anything good again for this country and its people - us?

Originally Posted by playwrite

LOL! That first part was pretty funny Aramea. Thanks for that.

The second half is likely often true as is the possibility that there are those able to work but choose not to - although it is hard for me to imagine many for the latter when you take into account mental illness - and sure a great deal of that may have been caused by illegal use of drugs, but it is what it is - I choose not to turn away from it.

I'm just wondering can we ever push past this. I mean if we found a path (and I believe MMT offers that path), would we still remain so divided in our basic assumptions, our visions, of "the other" that we will never purposefully and collectively achieve anything good again for this country and its people - us?

I think that most people prefer employment because, traditionally, it has paid better than welfare/unemployment. It also has some psychological benefits. I wonder what people expect the unemployed to do. If it isn't a good time for rich people to tap into their entrepeneurial spirits then why is it a good time for poor people to do so? In other words, when there are NO JOBS, what do they expect them to do?

Originally Posted by playwrite

So let's drastically cut back on the need for unemployment benefits as well as food stamps, housing assistance, and the rest of the safety net by giving people jobs!

I think anyone who is able to work, and isn’t in some temporary transition to a better job situation, would be extremely happy to be actually employed rather than relying on the safety net. This is pretty much borne out by psychologists and sociologists.

Exactly. people WANT to work, it gives people a sense of worth.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I think that most people prefer employment because, traditionally, it has paid better than welfare/unemployment. It also has some psychological benefits. I wonder what people expect the unemployed to do. If it isn't a good time for rich people to tap into their entrepeneurial spirits then why is it a good time for poor people to do so? In other words, when there are NO JOBS, what do they expect them to do?

I think at its heart is fear derived from assuming one end of the classical argument of the nature of humans -good or evil. If we don't punish slothfulness, even at the risk of harming the innocent, civilization will fall apart and riches held will not save them.

Maybe there's a third way - William James' way, the American way, of what the F works.

We seem to all want people employed but not at the cost of an out-of-controlled inflationary economy. MMT offers a way with the usual barriers of greed, ignorance and fear preventing its fruition.

Greed is easy because MMT actually improves the economy and incomes for everyone regardless of current status. Ignorance is simply a matter of people deciding they might learn something valuable. Fear is the real problem. Letting go long-held world belief systems evokes memento mori - most avoid that by instinct. A lucky few embrace it, like this young person -

Lei Takahashi
WS 220
Dr. Driver
Museum paper

Memento Mori


To get a better understanding of our Medieval Women class, we went on a trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. We went to the Medieval Art wing. After the trip, we were given the assignment to pick an artwork or an object that we liked or thought was interesting and then to write a short paper about what it was. Looking through the medieval section at the Met, I found a fascinating piece of jewelry in particular that caught my attention. It is a pendent that has a man’s and woman’s face on it, but that alone did not catch my eye. It was the fact that on the back of the pendent are two skeletons. Why are there skeletons behind the faces?
I later learned that what I had seen was called a Memento Mori. These are images that remind us to always remember death. I assumed that these two people portrayed on the pendant were lovers because I always find a parallel in love and death. Love and death are the two mysteries of life, and I think they go hand in hand. Freud said that the two motives for living are love and death. A memento mori seemed to fit with what Freud believed about life and death.
It was not until the Middle Ages that life and death started to have a collective meaning. This was the period when people started to think about life and death and what it meant when put together. People had come to feel that death was a rude and abrupt separation from life and that is how memento mori came to be. The pain, the gruesomeness and sadness of death are demonstrated in the memento mori.
Although the memento mori looks gruesome, it does not signify the fear of death. The memento mori expresses the passion for life, the love for life and the sad reality that it is not forever and that it has its painful ending. This is why I relate and agree with Freud’s two motives for living. One cannot avoid nor ignore death. It is there and it will come to all of us. This is why we embrace life and we do things that we love and we are encouraged to live life to fullest.
The memento mori especially fascinated me because I often forget that death comes so unexpectedly and that one can never predict it. Many times I go about forgetting to enjoy the moment and to remind myself that I have to embrace life and do the things that I love because tomorrow may never come. The memento mori was in a sense, a realization of life, love and death for me.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Just a thought, but couldn't perpetually extending unemployment benefits be a form of welfare? There is a thought that a number of people who would otherwise get jobs ..don't..because UI benefits pay more.

UI benefits are based on a percentage of ones base qualifying salary. Typically, it's less than 50%. So you think that an adult with adult responsiblities should take just any old job? Why? Does it offend you? Forcing people to take massive pay cuts, just to get them off the rolls, means the future is guaranteed to be grim for them. Most will lose their homes, among the many losses that typically can't be recouped. If that becomes the baseline for running the economy, then everyone will stop spending and horde against the day it may happen to them. Try removing 15%-20% of spending from the economy, and see what happens then. If you think what we have now is bad, ...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

UI benefits are based on a percentage of ones base qualifying salary. Typically, it's less than 50%. So you think that an adult with adult responsiblities should take just any old job? Why? Does it offend you? Forcing people to take massive pay cuts, just to get them off the rolls, means the future is guaranteed to be grim for them. Most will lose their homes, among the many losses that typically can't be recouped. If that becomes the baseline for running the economy, then everyone will stop spending and horde against the day it may happen to them. Try removing 15%-20% of spending from the economy, and see what happens then. If you think what we have now is bad, ...

Exactly. If the poor and lower middle class stop spending money (and horde) we are in real trouble. I have a "contingency plan" that involves a much less expensive lifestyle than I currently have. If the poor are squeezed much more than they currently are, expect families to pool resources to adapt. It is already happening with the phenomena of divorced couples continuing to live together because they cannot sell their homes.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

No, its never been tried because its stupid. Or maybe you prefer European levels of job growth i.e. non existent.

Oh. You probably do. That way THE RICH can support more people.

I'll take those European levels, since they are beating the bejesus out of us in that category at the moment. Even class mobility is beter there. Sorry. Fables aren't a reliable source of data.

And regarding the rich, they have been coddled in this country since the founding of Jametown. They are the only ones with the ability to influence the formulation of policy, and that continues to this very day.

When Warren Buffett argued for more taxation of "his class", he was rebuffed. Most rich people don't get a tinker's damn about the rest of us, and the politicians serve the mass of the money. Next, he'll be called a class traitor like FDR.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Ok. What about section 8 housing?

Do you think that families living on the street is better in some way? If so, feel free to move to Brazil or even India.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

No, your post discussed the "Social Gospel" as an excuse for welfare programs.

Ziggy used the term "Social Gospel." The rest of my statement stands.

It's not my compassion that's being wasting on destructive welfare programs. Its my tax dollars.

My tax dollars are being wasted on destructive wars overseas. Guess we just have different focuses here.

He still knows more about giving people medical care (and compassion) than you do.

One, I used to work in the medical field. Two, you don't know what's in my heart.

Ron Paul may have made a fine doctor, but I disagree with much of what he's done as a politician, and I will not vote for him.