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.
equal protection of the law is not a huge change. it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem. correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.you have nothing but ad hominems.I am not confused at all. Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs. The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test. So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing. The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it. If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy. increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
Welfare does that just as well, if not better. It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered. Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved. No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
that is express not implied. why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money. You quit. You opted out of working. So the welfare programs are your only option.
There already is equal protection under the law. Either side can end the relationship in at-will states. In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor. You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation. THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
Obviously it does not. You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.equal protection of the law is not a huge change. it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem. correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.you have nothing but ad hominems.
solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy. increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
Welfare does that just as well, if not better. It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered. Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved. No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
No it will not be more efficient. In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered. Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem. Simpler is better, as you have said. The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.that is express not implied. why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
There already is equal protection under the law. Either side can end the relationship in at-will states. In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor. You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation. THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
Obviously it does not. You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
I don't have a problem promoting general welfare. I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose. I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them. A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.equal protection of the law is not a huge change. it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem. correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.Welfare does that just as well, if not better. It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered. Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved. No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
No it will not be more efficient. In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered. Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem. Simpler is better, as you have said. The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.that is express not implied. why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.There already is equal protection under the law. Either side can end the relationship in at-will states. In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor. You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation. THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
Obviously it does not. You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
I don't have a problem promoting general welfare. I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose. I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them. A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.equal protection of the law is not a huge change. it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem. correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered. Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved. No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
No it will not be more efficient. In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered. Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem. Simpler is better, as you have said. The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
No it will not. How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer? It requires information from employers and the gov't. Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation. But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.that is express not implied. why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Obviously it does not. You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
I don't have a problem promoting general welfare. I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose. I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them. A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
Indeed it is. But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.equal protection of the law is not a huge change. it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered. Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved. No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
No it will not be more efficient. In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered. Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem. Simpler is better, as you have said. The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
No it will not. How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer? It requires information from employers and the gov't. Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation. But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State. Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.that is express not implied. why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?Obviously it does not. You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
I don't have a problem promoting general welfare. I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose. I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them. A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
Indeed it is. But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.equal protection of the law is not a huge change. it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
No it will not be more efficient. In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered. Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem. Simpler is better, as you have said. The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
No it will not. How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer? It requires information from employers and the gov't. Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation. But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State. Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
That is utter nonsense. Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded. And you call that simple?
No. Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
it is about equal protection of the law.solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.that is express not implied. why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
I don't have a problem promoting general welfare. I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose. I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them. A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
Indeed it is. But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual. All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs. Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work. And that is a very small percentage of the population.
yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.No it will not be more efficient. In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered. Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem. Simpler is better, as you have said. The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
No it will not. How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer? It requires information from employers and the gov't. Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation. But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State. Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
That is utter nonsense. Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded. And you call that simple?
No. Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
we don't need more welfare. we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
it is about equal protection of the law.solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.I don't have a problem promoting general welfare. I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose. I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them. A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
Indeed it is. But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual. All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs. Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work. And that is a very small percentage of the population.
there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer. and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
No it will not. How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer? It requires information from employers and the gov't. Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation. But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State. Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
That is utter nonsense. Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded. And you call that simple?
No. Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
we don't need more welfare. we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Welfare does that. It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.it is about equal protection of the law.solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
Indeed it is. But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual. All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs. Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work. And that is a very small percentage of the population.
No, it's really not. All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money. And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries. Your necessities are taken care of. But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner. No. Take the women to your house and cook them dinner. That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.No it will not. How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer? It requires information from employers and the gov't. Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation. But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State. Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
That is utter nonsense. Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded. And you call that simple?
No. Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
we don't need more welfare. we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Welfare does that. It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.it is about equal protection of the law.solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.Indeed it is. But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual. All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs. Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work. And that is a very small percentage of the population.
No, it's really not. All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money. And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries. Your necessities are taken care of. But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner. No. Take the women to your house and cook them dinner. That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.it is simpler with equal protection of the law. compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State. Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
That is utter nonsense. Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded. And you call that simple?
No. Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
we don't need more welfare. we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Welfare does that. It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job. You do not fit that category.
No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.it is about equal protection of the law.solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis. that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual. All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs. Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work. And that is a very small percentage of the population.
No, it's really not. All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money. And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries. Your necessities are taken care of. But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner. No. Take the women to your house and cook them dinner. That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
Equal protection of the law is already there.
And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
