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

[danielpalos]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.

It is enforced. It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.

there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits if Labor quits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.

Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?

You have no understanding of economics.

and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.

just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.

It is enforced. It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.

there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits if Labor quits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Not paying for luxuries with tax dollars taken from the wage earners is a reason to deny and disparage unemployment benefits outside of our current unemployment compensation program limitations.

 

[WinterBorn]

So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.

Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?

You have no understanding of economics.

and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.

just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.

I think it is immoral to quit a job and leech off the tax payer when I am capable of supporting myself.

And I do not believe we should take tax dollars from those who earn them just to give them to those who do not, in order to pay for luxuries.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

I've offered no excuses and you have not answered the question.

Solving for simple poverty both promotes and provides for the general welfare.

Solving for simple poverty and promoting for the general welfare is fine as long as it provides for necessities. When it provides luxuries for those who refuse to work it becomes theft and ceases to be about solving simple poverty or providing for the general welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Good question. I had never heard of it. I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

 

[danielpalos]

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.

This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.

It is enforced. It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.

there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits if Labor quits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Not paying for luxuries with tax dollars taken from the wage earners is a reason to deny and disparage unemployment benefits outside of our current unemployment compensation program limitations.

equal protection of the law is the goal.

 

[danielpalos]

So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.

Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?

You have no understanding of economics.

and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.

just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.

I think it is immoral to quit a job and leech off the tax payer when I am capable of supporting myself.

And I do not believe we should take tax dollars from those who earn them just to give them to those who do not, in order to pay for luxuries.

i think it is immoral to whine about taxes when i could just quit and go on unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

 

[WinterBorn]

So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.

Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?

You have no understanding of economics.

and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.

just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.

I think it is immoral to quit a job and leech off the tax payer when I am capable of supporting myself.

And I do not believe we should take tax dollars from those who earn them just to give them to those who do not, in order to pay for luxuries.

i think it is immoral to whine about taxes when i could just quit and go on unemployment.

I am not whining about taxes in general. Just about wasting those taxes providing for luxuries for someone who refuses to work.

And you cannot quit your job and go on unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

Good question. I had never heard of it. I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

 

[WinterBorn]

Good question. I had never heard of it. I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine? Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?

 

[danielpalos]

But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.

This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.

it should be abolished in modern times.

the right wing should have to convince us of their moral sincerity, first.

we already know there are not enough morals to go around if we have the Expense of Government for the right wing to whine about.