Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job. That is it. It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration. As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one. That is what welfare is for. The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival. You obviously do not.
You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living. Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence. You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need. You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs. However, that will not solve the homeless problem. Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them. Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance. And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse. Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
All you do is tell stories.
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
I should not have to lie for Government services.
The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job. That is it. It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration. As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one. That is what welfare is for. The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival. You obviously do not.
You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living. Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence. You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need. You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited. The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves. You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs. However, that will not solve the homeless problem. Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them. Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance. And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse. Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
All you do is tell stories.
But you are not living in poverty. You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on. You are not fighting for poor people. If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
we have a first amendment. your morals mean Nothing.yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.i am looking for work as well. i am looking for virtual positions online.I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want? Answer this simple question and we can continue.
I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
Virtual positions are out there. But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming. It is being a productive adult.
Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves. Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs. However, that will not solve the homeless problem. Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them. Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance. And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse. Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
All you do is tell stories.
But you are not living in poverty. You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on. You are not fighting for poor people. If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
Capital must circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job. That is it. It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration. As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one. That is what welfare is for. The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival. You obviously do not.
You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living. Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence. You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need. You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited. The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves. You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda. And, equal protection of the law is the issue.we have a first amendment. your morals mean Nothing.yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.i am looking for work as well. i am looking for virtual positions online.
I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
Virtual positions are out there. But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming. It is being a productive adult.
Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves. Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
YOur first amendment rights are intact. You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances. That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
And you have equal protection under the law.
Your stories make no sense. Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs. However, that will not solve the homeless problem. Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them. Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance. And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse. Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
All you do is tell stories.
But you are not living in poverty. You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on. You are not fighting for poor people. If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
Capital must circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
playing tax cut economics is worse.Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited. The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves. You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation. There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda. And, equal protection of the law is the issue.we have a first amendment. your morals mean Nothing.yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.Virtual positions are out there. But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming. It is being a productive adult.
Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves. Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
YOur first amendment rights are intact. You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances. That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
And you have equal protection under the law.
Your stories make no sense. Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs. However, that will not solve the homeless problem. Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them. Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance. And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse. Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
All you do is tell stories.
But you are not living in poverty. You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on. You are not fighting for poor people. If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
Capital must circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
playing tax cut economics is worse.Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.That is solved by the welfare programs. They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited. The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves. You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation. There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda. And, equal protection of the law is the issue.we have a first amendment. your morals mean Nothing.yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves. Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
YOur first amendment rights are intact. You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances. That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
And you have equal protection under the law.
I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda. You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not? Never happen.
any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.Your stories make no sense. Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
All you do is tell stories.
But you are not living in poverty. You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on. You are not fighting for poor people. If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
Capital must circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
Absolute bullshit. Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.playing tax cut economics is worse.Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment. Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty. We should have no homeless on the street.
Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited. The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves. You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation. There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
Not even close to relevant to what I said. Poverty is not just about not having money. There are programs to take care of those needs. Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.
this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda. And, equal protection of the law is the issue.we have a first amendment. your morals mean Nothing.Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves. Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
YOur first amendment rights are intact. You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances. That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
And you have equal protection under the law.
I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda. You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not? Never happen.
any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.Your stories make no sense. Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.But you are not living in poverty. You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on. You are not fighting for poor people. If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
Capital must circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
Absolute bullshit. Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.playing tax cut economics is worse.Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited. The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves. You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation. There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
Not even close to relevant to what I said. Poverty is not just about not having money. There are programs to take care of those needs. Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.
nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law. that is equal protection of the law. why not learn how to read.this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda. And, equal protection of the law is the issue.we have a first amendment. your morals mean Nothing.
equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
YOur first amendment rights are intact. You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances. That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
And you have equal protection under the law.
I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda. You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not? Never happen.
any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
Thank you. You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law. No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income. You want an income? Don't quit your job.
And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job. No Where.
no, it doesn't. that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.Your stories make no sense. Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.lol. only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
Capital must circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
Absolute bullshit. Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
