There are plenty of numbers and models in climate change as well.
Only solution? How about increasing inflows by bringing jobs back and eliminating illegal immigration. That basically solves the whole issue.
Why are we enriching the CCP?
2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
There are plenty of numbers and models in climate change as well.
Only solution? How about increasing inflows by bringing jobs back and eliminating illegal immigration. That basically solves the whole issue.
Why are we enriching the CCP?
sturg33
I
"more jobs!" is not a policy proposal
as I said, 100% labor participation will not solve this shortfall.
In fact, if we took the defense budget to $0... it would not solve this shortfall
you are not a serious person with these "solutions"
the program is failed. it is failed because it is a Ponzi scheme. and like all Ponzi schemes, it has run out of money
it is what it is, math guy
as I said, 100% labor participation will not solve this shortfall.
In fact, if we took the defense budget to $0... it would not solve this shortfall
you are not a serious person with these "solutions"
the program is failed. it is failed because it is a Ponzi scheme. and like all Ponzi schemes, it has run out of money
it is what it is, math guy
Sounds like some whining when I proposed real solutions.
Keep pretending that sending all of middle americas jobs to the CCP (YAY CAPITALISM) didn't cause of all of this.
Keep pretending.
Math guy - I would RUN CIRCLES around you in any math intensive exercise.
With fat American (1) is most certainly true.
(2) is a joke and should never happen.
Creating jobs is super easy. Just stop accepting chinese imports. PIECE OF CAKE>
sturg33
I
explain - with math - how your solutions closes the shortfall?
I might have believed you before learning that you an ardent supporter of Ponzi schemes
(1) More jobs equals more inflows plus less outflows for welfare (Basic Math)
(2) Removing illegals gets more jobs ON THE BOOKS which results in more inflows. Plus more Americans gets jobs which is less outflow out of other entitlements
Any other questions?
sturg33
I
Yes. I want specifics.
How many new jobs need to be created?
What will the labor force participation need to be?
What specific policies will be enacted that gets those two points done? (please read... specific policies)
Assuming nothing gets started until January of 2025, when will these jobs happen?
I don't have access to the necessary data sets to provide you with those specifics.
But its easy to think of a world where we stop any importing from the CCP and the resulting boom in manufacturing here domestically.
Deflecting to you want to see a final proposal with specifics is just a debate tactic to not admit you are wrong.
sturg33
I
of course you don't have specifics. because just screaming "create amazing high paying jobs" is what every politician says every year since the beginning of time.
for you to pretend trying to reform this failed system is the bad thing to do is preposterous. I can show you with hard math why it isn't going to work.
You're saying you can fix it with hard math, but can't give any specifics as to how
having said all that, I invite you to show me Donald Trump's proposal on this
They don't need to 'Amazing High Paying Jobs'. Using this as the rebuttal (something that was never said) gives insight into your intellectual honestly in this conversation. We need JOBS. Full stop and stopping sending them all to the CCP would be the trigger.
Your 'Math' is based on the current structure. I am saying we need to radically change our economic system. And we will....
sturg33
I
I want LESS people working.
I want more families and people working at home raising children
you want 100% labor participation work force in order to try to fund these horrific programs that rob Americans of 10x opportunity cost.
just failure all around. and if Donald trump's solution to the pending default of this program is "absolutely no changes" he is not a serious problem solver.
I again invite you to send his position on this
I want more families and people working at home raising children
you want 100% labor participation work force in order to try to fund these horrific programs that rob Americans of 10x opportunity cost.
just failure all around. and if Donald trump's solution to the pending default of this program is "absolutely no changes" he is not a serious problem solver.
I again invite you to send his position on this
I do not want 100% labor force participation. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS.
YOu want people fully invested into the private markets when they have no clue how to manage their checkbook. When the next stock market crash happens and retirees are ****ed you'll be nowhere to be found.
sturg33
I
Your proposed solution to fill the funding void is many more Americans working than they are today, is it not?
Absolutely. It also includes reduced welfare payments. It also includes more inflows. You aren't going to all of a sudden shed the female workforce by 100%. They want to work and in a lot of cases are good at their jobs. You don't need mommy home with baby 24/7 to have a functioning family or life.
sturg33
I
Ok great but if the math shows that even 100% labor participation force doesn't come close to closing the gap, then what?
Also strange to see you wanting to cut welfare benefits while simultaneously virtue signaling about social safety nets