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

[danielpalos]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

NONSENSE

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody is saying that is not the case.

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

General taxes are much more market friendly.

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work? Hell, that you even demean people who work?

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

NONSENSE

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

How so?

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes. They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms. Roughly 10% are check. That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added. No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

 

[danielpalos]

It is about equality and equal protection of the law. Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.

NONSENSE

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

lol. you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.

 

[danielpalos]

you simply understand nothing about economics. means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?

a lack of equal protection of the law. i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.

 

[danielpalos]

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

i have already informed you several times, several pages ago.

 

[danielpalos]

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

 

[WinterBorn]

NONSENSE

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

lol. you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.

LMAO!! I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim? Too funny.

No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check. Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).

 

[WinterBorn]

That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence? Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?

a lack of equal protection of the law. i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.

Do you? Funny, you have not shown them. What is unequal?

 

[WinterBorn]

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

i have already informed you several times, several pages ago.

No, you have not. Unless you are counting that ridiculous "the employer makes the same amount of money" nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met.

 

[danielpalos]

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

lol. you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.

LMAO!! I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim? Too funny.

No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check. Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).

employment is at the will of either party. there are no other requirements.

 

[WinterBorn]

What admin costs? The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

No, you are doing amazing backflips in logic to justify getting a check to pay for luxuries. You are not part of the natural rate of unemployment unless you are seeking a job. Which you have not done for at least 2 years.

 

[danielpalos]

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?

a lack of equal protection of the law. i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.

Do you? Funny, you have not shown them. What is unequal?

lol. protection of the law. there should be no denial, disparagement, or infringement to the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party.

 

[WinterBorn]

I need a valid argument? Why? You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program. So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law. In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation. And I have explained why in great detail several times.

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

lol. you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.

LMAO!! I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim? Too funny.

No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check. Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).

employment is at the will of either party. there are no other requirements.

So you are free to quit your job. This deprives your employer of your labor. And since you voluntarily quit, you have no check from unemployment compensation. THAT is equal protection under the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Frivolous? Not at all. I have been very serious about programs to help the poor. I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs. But then, that deserves frivolity.

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?

a lack of equal protection of the law. i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.

Do you? Funny, you have not shown them. What is unequal?

lol. protection of the law. there should be no denial, disparagement, or infringement to the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party.

Why? You expect employers to hire you whether they want you or not? You get to quit if you want, and they get to fire you. That is equal protection.