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

[WinterBorn]

No, I am not missing the point. You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.

The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue. That is the main reason they are where they are. Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane. The issues MUST be treat from the beginning. Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.

Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong. Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong. On this you are absolutely wrong.

they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.

Absolutely wrong. They are almost always homeless because of those issues.

i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.

Ok. But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people. You should have read them.

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all? Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?

No, that is not equality. Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.

Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.

Yes it is. And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences. One of which is no money. You don't get paid for "opting out of work". You have no right to other people's money for no reason.

stop being frivolous, story teller.

employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.

Employment is at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation has simple rules.

equal protection of the law to simplify even further, those simple rules.

Yeah, you can't do a means test so you push for unemployment compensation to provide you money for luxuries.

 

[danielpalos]

they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.

Absolutely wrong. They are almost always homeless because of those issues.

i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.

Ok. But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people. You should have read them.

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

why work for "just a check"?

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.

Yes it is. And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences. One of which is no money. You don't get paid for "opting out of work". You have no right to other people's money for no reason.

stop being frivolous, story teller.

employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.

Employment is at the will of either party. Unemployment compensation has simple rules.

equal protection of the law to simplify even further, those simple rules.

Yeah, you can't do a means test so you push for unemployment compensation to provide you money for luxuries.

that is Your story, story teller.

it is about equal protection of the law to help improve the efficiency of our economy.

once that is done, we can raise taxes by simply raising the unemployment wage rate.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolutely wrong. They are almost always homeless because of those issues.

i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.

Ok. But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people. You should have read them.

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

why work for "just a check"?

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

 

[danielpalos]

i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.

Ok. But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people. You should have read them.

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

why work for "just a check"?

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ok. But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people. You should have read them.

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

why work for "just a check"?

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

 

[danielpalos]

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

why work for "just a check"?

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it does. If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.

why work for "just a check"?

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

why work for "just a check"?

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because, for most people a check leads to a better life. But the homeless have other problems.

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

 

[danielpalos]

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism. it is a requirement for free market participation.

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

 

[WinterBorn]

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

 

[danielpalos]

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

 

[WinterBorn]

Capital does not just materialize. It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate. But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it. To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money. But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive. You are not.

nice story. why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

The definition of the logical fallacy Appeal to Ignorance is as follows:
"Appeal to Ignorance. This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim."

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

 

[danielpalos]

you only have stories, story teller.

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

 

[danielpalos]

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story. Once again, you refuse to answer. But you ask a question. Do you expect an answer?

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.

Oh really? And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will. Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.

post a definition, so we can go over it.

A definition of what?

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries. The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.

Bullshit.

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?