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

[WinterBorn]

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?

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

 

[danielpalos]

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you want to

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you want to

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

 

[danielpalos]

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you want to

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you want to
So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

Let me see if I understand what you are claiming. Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation. But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem? That is ridiculous.

 

[WinterBorn]

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

What, exactly, is incoherent about the post you quoted? I am happy to explain or clarify. Something you refuse to do. Unless you can point at what is incoherent, I am just going to go with "Daniel can't formulate and argument so he makes up bullshit".

 

[WinterBorn]

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

Let me help you out. I'll explain it carefully.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs). Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions. Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.

You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds? Who will pay the fees? Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent. And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

Let me see if I understand what you are claiming. Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation. But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem? That is ridiculous.

You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.

 

[danielpalos]

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

What, exactly, is incoherent about the post you quoted? I am happy to explain or clarify. Something you refuse to do. Unless you can point at what is incoherent, I am just going to go with "Daniel can't formulate and argument so he makes up bullshit".

i am still trying to dumb it down for the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

Let me help you out. I'll explain it carefully.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs). Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions. Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.

You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds? Who will pay the fees? Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent. And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.

lol.

i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.

 

[WinterBorn]

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

Let me see if I understand what you are claiming. Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation. But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem? That is ridiculous.

You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.

Not at all. Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.

 

[WinterBorn]

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

What, exactly, is incoherent about the post you quoted? I am happy to explain or clarify. Something you refuse to do. Unless you can point at what is incoherent, I am just going to go with "Daniel can't formulate and argument so he makes up bullshit".

i am still trying to dumb it down for the right wing.

No you are not. You are being deliberately obtuse. You want to be right, so your fantasy about unemployment compensation will come true. Then you can have whatever your state pays for unemployment as luxury spending money.

But offering money will not solve all the problems with the homeless. Giving them foodstamps that they cannot spend on drugs or alcohol and access to medical treatments can do more than just money can.

 

[WinterBorn]

So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories. I even posted a link addressing that.

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

Let me help you out. I'll explain it carefully.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs). Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions. Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.

You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds? Who will pay the fees? Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent. And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.

lol.

i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.

And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better. You chose to ignore the truth.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
Both offer an income. With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered. With welfare programs it is not.

With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs). Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs. Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.

With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions. Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
Having access to medical care is important. It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare. Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead. Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence. Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.


And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds? That won't work either. Who will pay the fees? Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

 

[danielpalos]

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

Let me see if I understand what you are claiming. Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation. But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem? That is ridiculous.

You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.

Not at all. Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.

You are the only one claiming that is the case.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing. It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.

 

[WinterBorn]

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

Let me see if I understand what you are claiming. Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation. But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem? That is ridiculous.

You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.

Not at all. Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.

You are the only one claiming that is the case.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing. It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.

Really? We have discussed homelessness at length. Money is not the solution there. In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs. Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.

Ready Reserve Labor Force? Have you looked up what that means?
"It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial reserve army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."

Now let's boldface some points you missed.

It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial reserve army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work.

People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation. That does not fit you, however. Since you are not looking for work.

The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.

 

[WinterBorn]

Welfare is more efficient and more complete. It is a better solution. And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot. But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.

anyone can Talk. Men have arguments.

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty. Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.

Let me see if I understand what you are claiming. Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation. But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem? That is ridiculous.

You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.

Not at all. Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.

You are the only one claiming that is the case.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing. It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.

Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?

Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?

 

[WinterBorn]

they should still not be on the street. we have camp grounds for that. with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.

With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues. Camp grounds? Who will pay the fees for that? Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.

Let me help you out. I'll explain it carefully.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs). Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions. Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.

You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds? Who will pay the fees? Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent. And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.

lol.

i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.

And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better. You chose to ignore the truth.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
Both offer an income. With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered. With welfare programs it is not.

With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs). Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs. Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.

With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions. Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
Having access to medical care is important. It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare. Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead. Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence. Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.


And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds? That won't work either. Who will pay the fees? Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said. For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.