So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

How much capital are the homeless circulating?

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

 

[danielpalos]

no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

You make up your own stories. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Yes, it does. But you are ignoring the point of our conversation. We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare. The higher wages is not part of that conversation. Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?

In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves. You earn more so you spend more. When you spend more your lifestyle changes. Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.

We would be worse off, without our freeway system.

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said everyone was part of circulating capital. But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is. Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all. And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same. You would just have higher wages.

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

You make up your own stories. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Yes, it does. But you are ignoring the point of our conversation. We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare. The higher wages is not part of that conversation. Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?

In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves. You earn more so you spend more. When you spend more your lifestyle changes. Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.

We would be worse off, without our freeway system.

"Freeway system"? Now it is about roads?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Why do you believe it is? If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages. Wages should always beat inflation.

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

You make up your own stories. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Yes, it does. But you are ignoring the point of our conversation. We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare. The higher wages is not part of that conversation. Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?

In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves. You earn more so you spend more. When you spend more your lifestyle changes. Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.

We would be worse off, without our freeway system.

"Freeway system"? Now it is about roads?

LOL. You understand Nothing.

It is about the socialism of Government taking money for the public good.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

You have explained nothing. And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate. What do those who earn it do with the capital?

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

No, you don't have to work. But if you don't work you don't get paid. In about 3 years I will retire. I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals? You keep talking about morals. One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality. These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it will not. Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.

You make up your own stories. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Yes, it does. But you are ignoring the point of our conversation. We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare. The higher wages is not part of that conversation. Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?

In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves. You earn more so you spend more. When you spend more your lifestyle changes. Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.

We would be worse off, without our freeway system.

"Freeway system"? Now it is about roads?

LOL. You understand Nothing.

It is about the socialism of Government taking money for the public good.

Au contraire, I do understand. And I am fully in favor of the use of welfare to take care of those who need it.

But you don't need it, you want it. There is a difference. You are selfish. You want to change the entire system to suit your very special circumstances. That is all.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

You have explained nothing. And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.

Yes I did explain. You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.

Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance.

The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

No, you don't have to work. But if you don't work you don't get paid. In about 3 years I will retire. I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals? You keep talking about morals. One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality. These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.

it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

You have explained nothing. And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.

Yes I did explain. You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.

Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance.

The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.

No, it isn't. Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best. Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy. Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question. Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

No, you don't have to work. But if you don't work you don't get paid. In about 3 years I will retire. I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals? You keep talking about morals. One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality. These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.

it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.

I don't know if it is moral. Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.

I am all for solving problems. But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

You have explained nothing. And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.

Yes I did explain. You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.

Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance.

The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.

No, it isn't. Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best. Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.

No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them. Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.

It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive. You have all of those.

 

[danielpalos]

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

No, you don't have to work. But if you don't work you don't get paid. In about 3 years I will retire. I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals? You keep talking about morals. One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality. These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.

it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.

I don't know if it is moral. Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.

I am all for solving problems. But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.

lol. i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

You have explained nothing. And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.

Yes I did explain. You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.

Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance.

The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.

No, it isn't. Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best. Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.

No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them. Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.

It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive. You have all of those.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective. Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

And capital does circulate under capitalism. Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. I am all for having a safety net for those who need help. But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

No, you don't have to work. But if you don't work you don't get paid. In about 3 years I will retire. I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals? You keep talking about morals. One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality. These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.

it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.

I don't know if it is moral. Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.

I am all for solving problems. But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.

lol. i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare. People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare. The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless. As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty. This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money. The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.

You have explained nothing. And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong. Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.

Yes I did explain. You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.

Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance.

The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.

No, it isn't. Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best. Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.

No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them. Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.

It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive. You have all of those.

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective. Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.

It is not more efficient. You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.

You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud. It is not a waste of resources.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is that? Employment is at-will. You don't have to work. Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.

No, you don't have to work. But if you don't work you don't get paid. In about 3 years I will retire. I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals? You keep talking about morals. One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality. These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.

it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.

I don't know if it is moral. Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.

I am all for solving problems. But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.

lol. i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare. People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare. The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.

lol. No, it isn't. Welfare is means tested not employment tested.