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

[WinterBorn]

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.

yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.

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.

there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.

By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job. You do not fit that category.

you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.

I get it. You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine. The programs designed to help the poor work fine. They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need. According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people. That accounts for 0.17% of the population. And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first. 99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of. No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason. But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working? Why are you so special?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

it is about equal protection of the law.

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.

it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.

Equal protection of the law is already there.

And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.

No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.

The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.

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.

there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.

By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job. You do not fit that category.

you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.

I get it. You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine. The programs designed to help the poor work fine. They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need. According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people. That accounts for 0.17% of the population. And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first. 99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of. No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason. But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working? Why are you so special?

Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.

Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."

 

[danielpalos]

it is about equal protection of the law.

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.

it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.

Equal protection of the law is already there.

And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.

No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.

The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.

no, it isn't. it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Welfare does that. It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.

there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.

By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job. You do not fit that category.

you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.

I get it. You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine. The programs designed to help the poor work fine. They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need. According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people. That accounts for 0.17% of the population. And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first. 99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of. No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason. But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working? Why are you so special?

Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.

Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."

This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly. We can't. The people, even on social programs, are still poor. But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life. That is what providing for the general welfare means. It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.

Equal protection of the law is already there.

And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.

No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.

The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.

no, it isn't. it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.

You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.

Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices. I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment. the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.

By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job. You do not fit that category.

you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.

I get it. You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine. The programs designed to help the poor work fine. They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need. According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people. That accounts for 0.17% of the population. And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first. 99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of. No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason. But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working? Why are you so special?

Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.

Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."

This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly. We can't. The people, even on social programs, are still poor. But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life. That is what providing for the general welfare means. It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

lol. Yes, we can. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.

Equal protection of the law is already there.

And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.

No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.

The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.

no, it isn't. it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.

You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.

Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices. I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.

those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.

 

[WinterBorn]

By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job. You do not fit that category.

you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.

I get it. You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine. The programs designed to help the poor work fine. They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need. According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people. That accounts for 0.17% of the population. And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first. 99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of. No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason. But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working? Why are you so special?

Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.

Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."

This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly. We can't. The people, even on social programs, are still poor. But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life. That is what providing for the general welfare means. It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

lol. Yes, we can. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.

Equal protection under the law is already there. If you insist that the employee be paid, from tax dollars, after quitting, then the employer should be able to use tax payer funded labor to replace the employee who quit. THAT would be equal protection.

And simple poverty will not be solved except by the actions and efforts of those who are poor. The social programs provide the financial assistance they need. But beyond that, they have to work for it. They cannot expect luxuries without effort. Nor can you. Giving the poor food, medical insurance, housing ect is acceptable. Giving them money so they can take women to dinner is not. That is not a need.

 

[WinterBorn]

Equal protection of the law is already there.

And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.

No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.

The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.

no, it isn't. it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.

You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.

Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices. I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.

those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.

How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke? You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.

The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month. In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.

 

[Oddball]

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?

 

[WinterBorn]

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?

Yep. I can work and argue with him at the same time. Doesn't take much.

 

[danielpalos]

you still don't get it. we subscribe to capitalism not socialism. thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.

I get it. You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine. The programs designed to help the poor work fine. They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need. According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people. That accounts for 0.17% of the population. And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first. 99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of. No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason. But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working? Why are you so special?

Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.

Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."

This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly. We can't. The people, even on social programs, are still poor. But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life. That is what providing for the general welfare means. It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

lol. Yes, we can. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.

Equal protection under the law is already there. If you insist that the employee be paid, from tax dollars, after quitting, then the employer should be able to use tax payer funded labor to replace the employee who quit. THAT would be equal protection.

And simple poverty will not be solved except by the actions and efforts of those who are poor. The social programs provide the financial assistance they need. But beyond that, they have to work for it. They cannot expect luxuries without effort. Nor can you. Giving the poor food, medical insurance, housing ect is acceptable. Giving them money so they can take women to dinner is not. That is not a need.

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just one party for unemployment compensation. Unequal protection of the law only burdens the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. We should have no homeless problem.

The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.

no, it isn't. it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.

You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.

Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices. I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.

those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.

How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke? You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.

The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month. In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.

unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.

 

[danielpalos]

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?

The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.

 

[Vastator]

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?

The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.

The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...

 

[Oddball]

Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?

The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.

The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...

Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.

 

[danielpalos]

Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.

with recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, persons could take as long as the want to practice at becoming Good capitalists.

 

[Vastator]

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?

The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.

The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...

Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.

What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...