While the above nearly coherent rant of yours was mildly entertaining to me, I don't see how it was relevant to what I said.

Huh? Who are the government depriving of food?

The people who don't want to work, LDO.

they've definitely screwed this up on a bunch of levels.

why would anyone want to go back to a dreary minimum wage job right now?

and here in canada, i know of many "american citizens" by birth parents who have got stimulus checks who have never lived a day in the USA in their whole lives.

needed more selectivity and thought put into it........ but maybe they didn't have the time necessary for that. definitely the checks to canadians is laughably bad.

The people who had money to buy food until the government took the money away because some antidotal evidence that small businesses couldn't hire people so they, the business owners, the requested the government starve workers to force them to work for the business owners.

Incorrect.

Try again.

You're being too vague.

We're dumb so you'll have to explain it to us.

It sounds like you're talking about the willingly unemployed people, but at the same time seem to be suggesting that the grocery store owners are being *******s for saying they can't find workers and encouraging to stop the obscene unemployment benefits. What good is government handout money if there are no goods and services to buy with it?

Whose food money was taken away by the government?

Those whose benefits were taken away by state governments who withdrew enhanced state benefits at the behest of business owners. The purpose of which is to starve some portion of the population into working for those business owners.

If the removing the benefits actually reduced unemployment it'd be a question of if that's something we'd want to do, but removing the benefits don't even do that. States that removed "obscene" unemployment benefits saw their unemployment rates rise compared to those who didn't.

Funniest thing is the agency that was in charge of dispatching all those stimulus checks is the most under funded and under staffed (IRS) and this year with all the new tax laws etc… they’re even more stressed

And yeah I know plenty of people doing unemployment, claiming stimulus checks for their relatives over seas

Please provide proof for the bolded. Thanks.

You need proof they cut back on unemployment benefits ?

No.

So why you think they cut it off if you know they did ?

Until all small businesses are shut down.

The economy was improving and more and more jobs are available. The purpose of unemployment benefits is to help people get by until they find employment. Jobs are becoming more and more plentiful.

A bit of a slight of hand going on here. Why do you think business owners themselves petitioned the government to remove unemployment benefits? What's their self interest in doing so?

I assume that their self-interest is that they believe that the extended unemployment benefits is keeping the available labor pool artificially low with respect to the rapidly increasing need for workers.

Which goes back to my earlier point: The purpose of the extension of the unemployment benefits was to help employees who, due to so many businesses being shut down (some of them permanently), were finding it very difficult to find employment. If jobs are plentiful, then the need for extended unemployment benefits is significantly mitigated.

So what mechanism forces people who lost extended benefits to take a job with a business owner? Why do people ultimately need to take a job? To prevent starvation.

So a business owner who wants to force people off of unemployment benefits wants to starve people to force them to take a job for them. That was pretty much the status quo before COVID. Florida had a completely non functioning UI system. The only reason why the enhanced UI is a flat payment to everyone is because states so neglected their UI systems so much it couldn't handle anything but handing out a flat amount of money to everyone.

So did removing the enhanced UI benefits cause more people to take up jobs, because of the threat of starvation?

Answer is not so far

https://www.businessinsider.com/unem...rly-gop-2021-7


So you have the cutting of UI benefits without the subsequent increase in jobs. You have, in effect, the willful infliction of pain and threat of starvation on the vulnerable at the behest of business owners with no clear benefit at all

Do you think prior covid , those working full time job at minimum wages we’re not near starvation already ?

I think that is the point , if someone as the courage to go to a 40 hours job per week , wouldn’t you agree the minimum of compensation is to live above the poverty line , not actually below it ?

Should the government promote unprofitable companies to stay open at the expense of the Americans by forcing them into unsustainable jobs ?
The US already have 20% zombies companies ……
Socialism for the rich but not for the poor ?

Ps: going back to industrial standards of employment at 6 days a week , 12 hours a day with no benefits , just to keep alive unprofitable industries sector and companies do not seem to be a good economic and social policy.

The hospitality industry was flooded with billions in free PPP money. It's a little disingenuous to whine about unemployment benefits given that.

Able-bodied people should work. I'll quote (from memory) the late, great Senator Barry Goldwater:

If a man wants to work but is unable to, the government should help him. If a man is able to work but chooses not to, to hell with him.

(I don't like the "to hell with him" phrase, but I certainly agree with the sentiment .)


Please stop with the "business owners are trying to starve people" garbage. Nobody is, or can, starve anybody. That's just stupid.

addendum: Only an evil government can starve people. Look at Stalin's Russia, for example. (Hi, Victor!)

Nobody working full-time at minimum wage is "near starvation." That's just dumb.

People in America who are working 40 hours a week, even if "below the poverty line", probably have a higher standard of living in a lot of ways than millionaires had in the 1890's.

The government should let unprofitable companies die, unless the business is unprofitable because of government interference.

As an aside, the government shouldn't get to decide what businesses are "essential" and which businesses are not.

A) “ About 70% of the 21 million federal aid beneficiaries worked full time, the report found.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walm...ficiaries.html

I wonder without food stamp what would happens ……

B) for a guy that uses garbage and stupid a lot in logical statement …..
“ Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of federal aid programs like Medicaid and food stamps, according to a study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.”

I’m sure a millionaire past century , living in a huge house , eating all he wants , dress how he wants ,not having to work and probably have lot of housekeepers around the house is far worst than being oblige to work at McDonald’s and needing the government help …while living in a $hitty apartment.

Do you have other idiotic takes like that ?

C) well government doesn’t do that for the past 20 years with multiple bail outs , tax cuts , etc .

So now cutting unemployment benefits makes no sense just to keep unprofitable business to stay open , forcing people to get miserable jobs …