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.
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.
Programs only distort markets. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and better ensures, full employment of capital resources in our Republic.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.
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.
Money is already being provided via welfare. We need programs to provide people with what they need to provide for themselves.
dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.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.
You continue to move the goalposts.
First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution. There is an institutional solution. Welfare.
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.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.
dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.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.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.
You continue to move the goalposts.
First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution. There is an institutional solution. Welfare.
Programs only distort markets. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and better ensures, full employment of capital resources in our Republic.we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.playing tax cut economics is worse.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.
Money is already being provided via welfare. We need programs to provide people with what they need to provide for themselves.
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.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.
You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
that is why we have unemployment compensation. learn how to read, huckleberry.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.
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.
I read quite well. Both employer and employees are protected.
If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid). And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.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.
Absolute bullshit. Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
You continue to move the goalposts.
First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution. There is an institutional solution. Welfare.
I understand the concepts quite well. There is not one story or stereotype in my posts. Not one, and you cannot show me any.
The safety nets are for those who need them. You do not need them, you want them.
it simply distorts normal market activity. unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.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.
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.
Yes, it does. It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
that is why we have unemployment compensation. learn how to read, huckleberry.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.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.
I read quite well. Both employer and employees are protected.
If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid). And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.Absolute bullshit. Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
You continue to move the goalposts.
First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution. There is an institutional solution. Welfare.
I understand the concepts quite well. There is not one story or stereotype in my posts. Not one, and you cannot show me any.
The safety nets are for those who need them. You do not need them, you want them.
it simply distorts normal market activity. unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.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.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.
Yes, it does. It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.that is why we have unemployment compensation. learn how to read, huckleberry.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.
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.
I read quite well. Both employer and employees are protected.
If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid). And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
I read quite well, thank you.
The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own. THAT is why we have unemployment compensation. There are consequences for quitting a job. You have no money. You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
i can't believe you, individual Person. Government has the authority over fixed Standards.Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
You continue to move the goalposts.
First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution. There is an institutional solution. Welfare.
I understand the concepts quite well. There is not one story or stereotype in my posts. Not one, and you cannot show me any.
The safety nets are for those who need them. You do not need them, you want them.
Solving poverty is always on the agenda. But you are not living in poverty. You have all you need.
Correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what, unemployment compensation does.it simply distorts normal market activity. unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.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.
As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
Yes, it does. It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
Welfare distorts normal market activity but unemployment compensation does not? Bullshit. Show a link.
No, it is not more cost effective. Especially if you intend to expand it and make it long term. And means testing, as I have explained, does not alter the efficiency of welfare.
It may not be enough? Enough for what?
That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.that is why we have unemployment compensation. learn how to read, huckleberry.nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law. that is equal protection of the law. why not learn how to read.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.
I read quite well. Both employer and employees are protected.
If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid). And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
I read quite well, thank you.
The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own. THAT is why we have unemployment compensation. There are consequences for quitting a job. You have no money. You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
I know how to read.That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.that is why we have unemployment compensation. learn how to read, huckleberry.nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law. that is equal protection of the law. why not learn how to read.
I read quite well. Both employer and employees are protected.
If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid). And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
I read quite well, thank you.
The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own. THAT is why we have unemployment compensation. There are consequences for quitting a job. You have no money. You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
Sure it is. That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
