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

[danielpalos]

if he is generating income, he must be self-employed. how does he manage his money?

Did you read what I said?

"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"

It was quite clear. He is not self employed. He has no job.

he is generating income from capital. it is a form of self-employment. "retirement" is just label, in this case.

But he has no job. That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.

You do not need the income. So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.

If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.

And no, it is not "a form of self-employment". There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.

And your own comments of "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?" and
"it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it." show that you think it should be need based. Thank you for agreeing with me.

money management is his job.

No it is not. He doesn't manage his money. He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you read what I said?

"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"

It was quite clear. He is not self employed. He has no job.

he is generating income from capital. it is a form of self-employment. "retirement" is just label, in this case.

But he has no job. That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.

You do not need the income. So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.

If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.

And no, it is not "a form of self-employment". There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.

And your own comments of "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?" and
"it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it." show that you think it should be need based. Thank you for agreeing with me.

money management is his job.

No it is not. He doesn't manage his money. He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

 

[danielpalos]

he is generating income from capital. it is a form of self-employment. "retirement" is just label, in this case.

But he has no job. That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.

You do not need the income. So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.

If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.

And no, it is not "a form of self-employment". There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.

And your own comments of "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?" and
"it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it." show that you think it should be need based. Thank you for agreeing with me.

money management is his job.

No it is not. He doesn't manage his money. He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

 

[WinterBorn]

But he has no job. That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.

You do not need the income. So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.

If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.

And no, it is not "a form of self-employment". There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.

And your own comments of "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?" and
"it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it." show that you think it should be need based. Thank you for agreeing with me.

money management is his job.

No it is not. He doesn't manage his money. He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

 

[danielpalos]

money management is his job.

No it is not. He doesn't manage his money. He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

 

[WinterBorn]

No it is not. He doesn't manage his money. He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you think people wouldn't want more money.

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

 

[danielpalos]

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

 

[WinterBorn]

Alternate universe? Are you really that naive?

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it. I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

 

[danielpalos]

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[WinterBorn]

What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause. And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

 

[danielpalos]

it isn't happening now. And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for actual not fantastical, economic phenomena.

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance. Actual housing and actual food. No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

 

[danielpalos]

you make up your own stories, story teller. i know you don't care.

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

LOL. You are worse because you only tell stories. Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't care? lol You talk about helping the poor and the homeless. You talk about what is good for the market. You know what would be good for the poor and homeless? If you actually DID something besides sitting at home. It doesn't take money to volunteer. Go do some good. But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market? Do you know what would help the market? If you got a job and produced some goods or services. If you contributed to the tax base. THAT would help the market. But no, you don't want to contribute. You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

LOL. You are worse because you only tell stories. Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?

Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you. lol

 

[danielpalos]

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

LOL. You are worse because you only tell stories. Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?

Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you. lol

You only make up stories, not concepts.

 

[WinterBorn]

So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.

You like to lecture. But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution. You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

LOL. You are worse because you only tell stories. Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?

Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you. lol

You only make up stories, not concepts.

Allow me to do something you cannot do. I will give you examples of what I am talking about.

First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation. I have given you several reasons why that will not help. Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons. All my reasons are valid and well explained.

Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market. This one is very amusing. I never denied that capital must circulate. But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another. Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it. If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over. Most of that spending will be in the local economy. If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy. Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it. So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.


Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told? At least I didn't lie when I first started here.

 

[danielpalos]

You are worse. I actually understand economics, story teller.

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

LOL. You are worse because you only tell stories. Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?

Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you. lol

You only make up stories, not concepts.

Allow me to do something you cannot do. I will give you examples of what I am talking about.

First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation. I have given you several reasons why that will not help. Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons. All my reasons are valid and well explained.

Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market. This one is very amusing. I never denied that capital must circulate. But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another. Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it. If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over. Most of that spending will be in the local economy. If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy. Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it. So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.


Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told? At least I didn't lie when I first started here.

I gave you the legal reason why it would solve our homeless problem. People would simply need go to EDD (in California) and apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.

With recourse to that income, persons would be able to participate more in our markets. Thus, solving that form of simple poverty in our economy and engendering that positive multiplier effect.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse. No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people. You want to make it easier to live and play without a job. You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics. If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things. To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster. Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play. You know, like you. You have your needs met. But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful). That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?

LOL. You are worse because you only tell stories. Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?

Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you. lol

You only make up stories, not concepts.

Allow me to do something you cannot do. I will give you examples of what I am talking about.

First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation. I have given you several reasons why that will not help. Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons. All my reasons are valid and well explained.

Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market. This one is very amusing. I never denied that capital must circulate. But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another. Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it. If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over. Most of that spending will be in the local economy. If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy. Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it. So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.


Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told? At least I didn't lie when I first started here.

I gave you the legal reason why it would solve our homeless problem. People would simply need go to EDD (in California) and apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.

With recourse to that income, persons would be able to participate more in our markets. Thus, solving that form of simple poverty in our economy and engendering that positive multiplier effect.

Jeez. Really? After all that I have told you, you are still trying to pass this off as a good idea?

Let me go back and get the reasons......

Ok, here are the reasons you have seen over and over and over. (reasons in Bold)

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
The homeless, by definition, have no mailing address. The suggestion that they use MailBoxes Ect is even more ridiculous, since they require two forms of ID to get a mailbox.
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
No state is going to issue an ID to someone who cannot prove they are a resident of that state, or even a US Citizen.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
You think putting $2k a month into someone's pocket is the end all solution? Maybe if the problem is that there are not enough muggings and robberies. But certainly not a solution to homelessness. You would simply be contributing to more victimization of the homeless
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
Substance abuse has been reported in as many as 68% of the homeless in many cities. You think handing them $2k a month in cash will help that? Do you think, given their circumstances and their addictions, that these people will use the money for rehab and save it for a home? Or will they likely use it to supply their addictions and end up dead?

Given these 4 good reasons against your fantasy of everyone getting a check from unemployment, it boggles my mind that you are still trying to use it. Talk about not understanding the concepts.