What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[danielpalos]

I think he once quit a job and couldn't collect unemployment.

He's been angry about it for decades now.

It was annoying, but I got more upset with right wingers (hypocritically while alleging to be for the "gospel Truth") having a problem with less fortunate "illegals" not obeying the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

He's trying to set up a false dynamic where he can claim that being fired from a job or quitting qualifies him to collect UC. There's no legal linkage, but he keeps insisting there is and that at will employment somehow overrides UC law. It's one of his hardest held doctrines and he's not deviated from it at all.

The is employment at the will of either party. Cause does not matter; analogous to no-fault insurance. If it is legal to fire the person, that person should qualify for unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it will mean that legal opinion has reversed itself. Now, from where do you see this overturning coming from? Are you going to launch the lawsuit and get laughed out of court?

lol. No. Only the frivolous, clueless and Causeless right wing does that. I haven't lost my arguments on this forum. All we have discovered is that right wingers have nothing but fallacy but still want to be Right simply because they are on the right wing. Their lips move and they type on the Internet to prove it all the time.

Come up with valid arguments for rebuttal to even begin to be more than a simple procedural challenge instead a legal argument challenge.

 

[danielpalos]

He's trying to set up a false dynamic where he can claim that being fired from a job or quitting qualifies him to collect UC. There's no legal linkage, but he keeps insisting there is and that at will employment somehow overrides UC law. It's one of his hardest held doctrines and he's not deviated from it at all.

He's a mindlessly repetitive one-trick-pony. Good for target practice when I've got time to kill, though.

isn't right wing fantasy wonderful where you can Always be Right simply because you are on the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

No it’s not otherwise you would be able to address in court, which it hasn’t, it is the law of the land, so far you have been inept at best in getting the law change, your congressman felt it was a waste of time.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the equal protection clause regarding employment at the will of either party.

And, my Congressmen doesn't want to have to deal with right wingers with nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Right, and "no adverse legal consequences" actually means what these days within this context? Are you suggesting that a lack of income due to self-imposed unemployment is considered a "legal" consequence of something somewhere? If so, perhaps the legal remedy should be to slap oneself silly?

The legal point is equal protection of the laws. The economic point is that unemployment compensation generates a multiplier of 2 versus a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending including common defense spending.

Only the right wing doesn't get it.

 

[Papageorgio]

No it’s not otherwise you would be able to address in court, which it hasn’t, it is the law of the land, so far you have been inept at best in getting the law change, your congressman felt it was a waste of time.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the equal protection clause regarding employment at the will of either party.

And, my Congressmen doesn't want to have to deal with right wingers with nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments.

I appeal to the law that is put into place to protect the hard working Americans. Your congressman has fed you lies to get you off his back, the only reason a congress person would fail to sponsor a bill is that A) He doesn't believe in your cause or B)As you said, you had no money because he doesn't believe in your cause unless you pay him to believe.

 

[Papageorgio]

Right, and "no adverse legal consequences" actually means what these days within this context? Are you suggesting that a lack of income due to self-imposed unemployment is considered a "legal" consequence of something somewhere? If so, perhaps the legal remedy should be to slap oneself silly?

The legal point is equal protection of the laws. The economic point is that unemployment compensation generates a multiplier of 2 versus a multiplier of .8 for general welfare spending including common defense spending.

Only the right wing doesn't get it.

The multiplier is at best 1.7, if you turn it into a public welfare distribution the multiplier would then drop to .8 because all the current welfare recipients would now qualify for the unemployment compensation thus turning it into another welfare program.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you have absolutely no proof that you idea will solve the homeless problem. Your multiplier for unemployment is off, the multiplier effect is 1.7, however that would lower when those that do not want to work and join the welfare rolls. It doesn't matter where the money comes from it is going to be used for welfare which would drop the multiplier down to .8, not seeing the advantage.

Does capitalism work or not? Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Isn't that a self-evident truth that simply providing recourse to an income under our form Capitalism can solve any capital related problem regarding the homeless?

Are you claiming that You would receive no benefit from being able to obtain unemployment compensation if you found yourself homeless?

Why would the homeless stay homeless with a consistent income under our form of Capitalism?

Can you provide an explanation as to why you claim it doesn't matter where the money comes from it is going to be used for welfare? How does that happen now with unemployment compensation?

I cited this study which measured the multiplier at 2 (page iv); you provided no link to support your assertion.

Combining all UI components, we find that, overall, the UI program closed 0.183 of the gap in real GDP caused by the recession. There is reason to believe, however, that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly. Multiplier effects in real GDP were estimated to average 2.0 for regular UI benefits and also 2.0 for extended benefits.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

 

[danielpalos]

And yet you haven't proved it to be unconstitutional, when you get it to court and spout your case, then we shall see if it has any basis, my guess is the courts will throw it out and yo will have nothing. Just like the congressman didn't want to touch it, the courts will be the same. You have a nothing burger until you prove to the courts or congress otherwise.

I have already proved right wingers in this thread have no valid arguments and simply indulge in right wing fantasy but believe they have the "gospel Truth".

 

[danielpalos]

That is the correct motorcycle, you cannot fundamentally change UC and expect it to function just like it always has. He does, though.

Equal protection of the laws is a "fundamental change"? Can you explain that line of reasoning?

 

[danielpalos]

And you have not supported that statement with anything. Not at all, whereas you've been shown over and over how that doesn't influence UC AT ALL. It doesn't even impair at will employment. That just means you can quit your job and they can fire you, end of story. Has nothing to do with collecting UC.

I agree to disagree. All I have shown is that right wingers prefer to appeal to ignorance instead of "work hard" to produce valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

And that has nothing to do with collecting UC. They are separate issues.

Can you explain how and why they are separate issues?

 

[danielpalos]

That law only concerns the employment of a person and not the eligibility to collect unemployment.

The whole and entire Point is that there is no basis in law to deny or disparage through unequal protection, faithful execution of our at-will employment laws by any Agency of a State nor the State.

 

[Papageorgio]

No it’s not otherwise you would be able to address in court, which it hasn’t, it is the law of the land, so far you have been inept at best in getting the law change, your congressman felt it was a waste of time.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the equal protection clause regarding employment at the will of either party.

And, my Congressmen doesn't want to have to deal with right wingers with nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise instead of any valid arguments.

Yes, you are appealing to your ignorance of understanding. You have only your fantasy which no court will hear because they think your premise is flawed and no congress will sponsor because they don't believe in your idea nor do they believe in you, it seems you don't have the capital to fund such a law.

 

[danielpalos]

The ironic thing is you’re railing against the system that has taken more people out of poverty than any other on record. Don’t believe me? Look at the Chinese over the last 20 years.

It is your understanding of the socio-economics of the issues that leads you to think that. It is not Capitalism that has done it but that less faithful execution of the laws has prevented socialism from lifting all those people out of poverty. Empty cities built by socialism regardless of capitalism is a self-evident proof. All of the people affected by the floods over there could have been relocated by socialism since capitalism has no private profit motive.

 

[Papageorgio]

And yet you haven't proved it to be unconstitutional, when you get it to court and spout your case, then we shall see if it has any basis, my guess is the courts will throw it out and yo will have nothing. Just like the congressman didn't want to touch it, the courts will be the same. You have a nothing burger until you prove to the courts or congress otherwise.

I have already proved right wingers in this thread have no valid arguments and simply indulge in right wing fantasy but believe they have the "gospel Truth".

You have not proven anything is unconstitutional, you don't even have a court that will listen to your argument because it is a fallacy. So you have proved absolutely nothing other than you are thick headed and are not smart enough to get even one congressperson to fight for what you seem to claim is a given. You have nothing and you just keep proving that you have nothing as none wants anything to do with your idea.

 

[danielpalos]

.....hahahahh--as in so many issues, you people do not think realistically ==like armchair generals playing a map game =
....you don't realize we are talking about HUMANS!!! you can give some humans a million $$$ and they will still blow it = poor...they are ''stupid''/etc

You must be on the right wing. One time payments mean nothing. Corporate welfare is alive and well and those firms can afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory.

 

[danielpalos]

.....another thing, you can create jobs, but that doesn't mean the stupid LAZY humans will be good doing them/etc.....some people don't have the discipline/industriousness/etc to be good workers .......

Your point? Or do you believe more in our endless, costly, and less effective war on poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

Economy’s are living breathing things. It’s best to go with what has worked throughout the course of time rather than make the same mistakes that have been tested and already failed

Because economies are “living breathing things” — they change over time, develop, age and can even die. Over generations large economic institutions and even the capitalist system itself needs to be reborn, and new laws must be developed to deal with new contradictions. Just like every farm and business dies or otherwise becomes interconnected to the larger whole, national economies are integrated with others. This creates whole new physical realities and money circulatory systems.

I don’t want to simplify matters. You probably agree our present “crony capitalist” system is utterly corrupt at many levels. It’s historic nature has changed profoundly. In my opinion classes and individuals without capital today, especially if they lack other supportive social or institutional structures, are lost in modern society. They are like babes alone in the woods, essentially doomed.

There is no built-in guarantee that “modern capitalism” under a national state umbrella of law can work in the future for the great majority of mankind. Stronger international structures of law and trade and a much more powerful social democratic safety net must be extended to the whole human community.

The solutions can’t just be “Unemployment Insurance” and “a high minimum wage” .... of course. But traditional opportunities are disappearing for too many in our high-tech, automated, globalized economy. Demands for “Jobs or basic income,” higher wages, universal medical care, free (equal opportunity) education — these are reasonable and inevitable demands for those left at the bottom of society. The elites who run our corporations and states ought to pay more attention to the welfare of those at the bottom, just as they must pay attention to those in the middle ... being driven to the bottom.

From one perspective, "capitalism died in 1929" and socialism via social programs enacted by FDR's administration have been bailing out Capitalism ever since.