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

[danielpalos]

You keep stating it without any supporting evidence. You have not made the case that labor law cannot have qualifications and even admitted that your inane stance is wrong because it would mean that children are due UC payments because they don't have jobs.

Not at all. It is just You appealing to ignorance and begging the question. The issue is employment at the will of either party.

You have not made the case that EDD as an Agency of a State has any authority to make any rules, regulations, etc. that are repugnant to that concept.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It wasn't all that long along ago.. You could work at one job, put ten percent in the bank, "earn" an additional five or six percent interest, spend some having fun, and pay your dad back for the car loan with the rest. Now you need half a $million per month just to rent an apartment in Manhattan.

Yup, and you could graduate from high school, work at the assembly line for 40 years, your wife stay home to keep the house and raise five kids that could go to college, retire at 65 and live out your golden years. It's a different world now.

All that happened due to FDR's brand of socialism not any form of free market Capitalism.

You're the one arguing for "market friendly" solutions here. Got irony?

 

[danielpalos]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.

That is incorrect. Just giving people more money doesn't help them learn financial responsibility, and even the poor can learn financial responsibility. It's the same principle whether you're talking about $10 or $10 million. The lottery winners that ended up broke prove that point, as well as the poor that are happy with the little they have.

You are claiming that anyone with a consistent income would be financially irresponsible when participating in any market in our economy. That is untrue since persons would be learning how to save for items they could not afford immediately with their limited income.

You are claiming no person can learn how to be market friendly with a consistent income. It is unsound reasoning and simply begging the question.

 

[danielpalos]

It wasn't all that long along ago.. You could work at one job, put ten percent in the bank, "earn" an additional five or six percent interest, spend some having fun, and pay your dad back for the car loan with the rest. Now you need half a $million per month just to rent an apartment in Manhattan.

Yup, and you could graduate from high school, work at the assembly line for 40 years, your wife stay home to keep the house and raise five kids that could go to college, retire at 65 and live out your golden years. It's a different world now.

All that happened due to FDR's brand of socialism not any form of free market Capitalism.

You're the one arguing for "market friendly" solutions here. Got irony?

Not irony at all. Ensuring full employment of capital resources via the socialism of equal protection of the laws instead of a wartime economy is market friendly.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Rude doesn't begin to describe the disgusting arrogance required to equate slavery with not getting paid to do nothing.

Employment is at the will of either party. No employer would be paying anyone to do nothing. The State administering benefits for the general welfare has to do it through equal protection of the laws.

Wishful gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

 

[hadit]

You keep stating it without any supporting evidence. You have not made the case that labor law cannot have qualifications and even admitted that your inane stance is wrong because it would mean that children are due UC payments because they don't have jobs.

Not at all. It is just You appealing to ignorance and begging the question. The issue is employment at the will of either party.

You have not made the case that EDD as an Agency of a State has any authority to make any rules, regulations, etc. that are repugnant to that concept.

How do qualifications on EDD mean you can't quit your job? You haven't answered that.

 

[hadit]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.

That is incorrect. Just giving people more money doesn't help them learn financial responsibility, and even the poor can learn financial responsibility. It's the same principle whether you're talking about $10 or $10 million. The lottery winners that ended up broke prove that point, as well as the poor that are happy with the little they have.

You are claiming that anyone with a consistent income would be financially irresponsible when participating in any market in our economy. That is untrue since persons would be learning how to save for items they could not afford immediately with their limited income.

You are claiming no person can learn how to be market friendly with a consistent income. It is unsound reasoning and simply begging the question.

Not what I said. No wonder you can't seem to understand basic economic facts.

 

[hadit]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

If fallacy means you lost the argument, you haven't won one yet.

 

[danielpalos]

You keep stating it without any supporting evidence. You have not made the case that labor law cannot have qualifications and even admitted that your inane stance is wrong because it would mean that children are due UC payments because they don't have jobs.

Not at all. It is just You appealing to ignorance and begging the question. The issue is employment at the will of either party.

You have not made the case that EDD as an Agency of a State has any authority to make any rules, regulations, etc. that are repugnant to that concept.

How do qualifications on EDD mean you can't quit your job? You haven't answered that.

Because of the adverse economic effects on Labor as the least wealthy in our economy. It contradicts the concept of employment at will if Labor suffers a penalty for faithfully executing the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

 

[danielpalos]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.

That is incorrect. Just giving people more money doesn't help them learn financial responsibility, and even the poor can learn financial responsibility. It's the same principle whether you're talking about $10 or $10 million. The lottery winners that ended up broke prove that point, as well as the poor that are happy with the little they have.

You are claiming that anyone with a consistent income would be financially irresponsible when participating in any market in our economy. That is untrue since persons would be learning how to save for items they could not afford immediately with their limited income.

You are claiming no person can learn how to be market friendly with a consistent income. It is unsound reasoning and simply begging the question.

Not what I said. No wonder you can't seem to understand basic economic facts.

Thank you for ceding that point.

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all need valid arguments. Every fallacy means you lost the argument because you have no valid arguments for rebuttal.

If fallacy means you lost the argument, you haven't won one yet.

A right winger typing on the Internet? You need valid arguments for rebuttal not merely begging the question and insisting you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing. Admit it, right wingers are simply hypocrites about the law when it involves the Poor.

 

[hadit]

You keep stating it without any supporting evidence. You have not made the case that labor law cannot have qualifications and even admitted that your inane stance is wrong because it would mean that children are due UC payments because they don't have jobs.

Not at all. It is just You appealing to ignorance and begging the question. The issue is employment at the will of either party.

You have not made the case that EDD as an Agency of a State has any authority to make any rules, regulations, etc. that are repugnant to that concept.

How do qualifications on EDD mean you can't quit your job? You haven't answered that.

Because of the adverse economic effects on Labor as the least wealthy in our economy. It contradicts the concept of employment at will if Labor suffers a penalty for faithfully executing the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

And there's the rub. You are trying to generate sympathy for those who refuse to work by calling them the "least wealthy in our economy", but are ignoring the fact that Labor is already taken care of because it is paid as long as it works and receives UC if it is laid off through no fault of their own. It is not "suffering a penalty" to not qualify for a benefit. Do I "suffer a penalty" because I don't qualify for food stamps? Not at all. I consider myself fortunate to not require that assistance.

Did you ever stop to think that "Labor" refers to those that work, not to those who refuse to work even when there are jobs available? Yet another redefinition of terms by you.

Now, I believe you are trying to make the case that not being able to collect UC makes people keep working instead of quitting. That's a good thing and works as designed. No court in the land has found it to be unconstitutional or in conflict with other laws. Others may wish it to be so, but you are the only one claiming that it already is.

 

[hadit]

What do you mean by nothing? Paying people to help stimulate the economy by engendering a positive multiplier promotes and provides for the general welfare. Using "warmer social policies really can cause rising economic sea levels", which can lift all boats.

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.

That is incorrect. Just giving people more money doesn't help them learn financial responsibility, and even the poor can learn financial responsibility. It's the same principle whether you're talking about $10 or $10 million. The lottery winners that ended up broke prove that point, as well as the poor that are happy with the little they have.

You are claiming that anyone with a consistent income would be financially irresponsible when participating in any market in our economy. That is untrue since persons would be learning how to save for items they could not afford immediately with their limited income.

You are claiming no person can learn how to be market friendly with a consistent income. It is unsound reasoning and simply begging the question.

Not what I said. No wonder you can't seem to understand basic economic facts.

Thank you for ceding that point.

I conceded no point. You did not read what I wrote and posted a fallacy regarding it.

 

[danielpalos]

And there's the rub. You are trying to generate sympathy for those who refuse to work by calling them the "least wealthy in our economy", but are ignoring the fact that Labor is already taken care of because it is paid as long as it works and receives UC if it is laid off through no fault of their own.

The rub is equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party with no adverse consequences for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

And you are simply being disingenuous at best or we would have no endless war on poverty nor any homelessness in our first world economy.

Fault only matters with for-cause employment and EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.

Admit it right wingers, y'all don't really care about equal protection of the law; so stop whining if an Agency of Government like the ATF creates rules and regulations contrary to our Second Amendment.

 

[hadit]

And there's the rub. You are trying to generate sympathy for those who refuse to work by calling them the "least wealthy in our economy", but are ignoring the fact that Labor is already taken care of because it is paid as long as it works and receives UC if it is laid off through no fault of their own.

The rub is equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of either party with no adverse consequences for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

And you are simply being disingenuous at best or we would have no endless war on poverty nor any homelessness in our first world economy.

Fault only matters with for-cause employment and EDD must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed in an at-will employment State.

Admit it right wingers, y'all don't really care about equal protection of the law; so stop whining if an Agency of Government like the ATF creates rules and regulations contrary to our Second Amendment.

IOW, you're claiming that, if the state allows you to quit your job, it is obligated to pay you. Do you have any idea how warped that thinking is? And truly ignorant is you bringing the 2nd Amendment into a discussion on your lack when it comes to Labor law.

Please cite the legal decision that supports your claim. Include the court and the name of the judge that made the decision. Then cite whether it was overturned by a higher court.

 

[danielpalos]

IOW, you're claiming that, if the state allows you to quit your job, it is obligated to pay you.

I am saying there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no program to support people who do not want to work and will not look for a job. You continually talk about the natural rate of unemployment for capitalism. And there is a low rate of unemployment even in the best of times. But in order for that to have any bearing on this topic, you will have to show that the same people remain unemployed despite their best efforts to get jobs. And you can't.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We have no State laws regarding employment as wage-slaves. The bearing on this topic is equal protection of our own laws. It really is that simple. There is no other issue to consider regarding this topic.

And, you need a valid argument to show how equal protection of the laws doesn't promote or provide for the general welfare not simply false, right wing alleged morality.

No, there is no requirement to work. There is also no requirement for state support for able bodied people who simply choose not to work

 

[danielpalos]

There is no program to support people who do not want to work and will not look for a job. You continually talk about the natural rate of unemployment for capitalism. And there is a low rate of unemployment even in the best of times. But in order for that to have any bearing on this topic, you will have to show that the same people remain unemployed despite their best efforts to get jobs. And you can't.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We have no State laws regarding employment as wage-slaves. The bearing on this topic is equal protection of our own laws. It really is that simple. There is no other issue to consider regarding this topic.

And, you need a valid argument to show how equal protection of the laws doesn't promote or provide for the general welfare not simply false, right wing alleged morality.

No, there is no requirement to work. There is also no requirement for state support for able bodied people who simply choose not to work

If there is no requirement to work then there is no basis to deny or disparage equal protection of the law in an at-will employment State.

 

[ReinyDays]

How are you eliminating financial irresponsibility? ... some boats have holes in the bottom and there's no fixing them ...

Why do you believe that is the case? Poverty eliminates financial responsibility. Anyone with a consistent income will probably learn how to manage their money, eventually.
[/QUOTE]

Twenty years managing low-income rental units ... I've heard all the excuses ... all the lies ... seen the choices ...

Mainly mental health issues and drug addiction ... you'll never get a junkie to buy their kids food first, before the fix, just not going to happen ...

You make the same mistake the Soviets did ... you're not including the beggars, whores and theives in your utopia ... sorry, there will always be bottom feeders in any society ...