Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[danielpalos]

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

 

[danielpalos]

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.

Allowing anyone without a job to draw unemployment for as long as they want is not solving poverty.

employers can't hire everyone. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of Employment.

That does not mean those who quit a job and do not seek another deserve unemployment.

it has to do with economics, not morals; our First Amendment applies.

 

[danielpalos]

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

 

[danielpalos]

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

He and I have been arguing this for a long time. He demands that unemployment compensation be given to people who voluntarily quit their job and do not look for another one. Welfare requires some investigation into income and assets. He wants to bypass all that and just get a check.

He often posts a quote to the effect of "capital should work. Only fools and horse work". He is trying to justify not working but still getting paid. He does so by extolling the benefits of more people having money to spend, while ignoring that taking money via taxes reduces more people's ability to spend.

the is employment at will.

Indeed it is. And, as I said before, the income comes with the employment. You quit a job, you also quit getting paid.

That solves nothing.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

 

[g5000]

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

So what is your solution, exactly?

 

[danielpalos]

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

So what is your solution, exactly?

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is public policy, eminent domain applies.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to solve simple poverty.

 

[WinterBorn]

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

Yes, the infrastructure already exists in every state and federal district for welfare. What you want would be served by that existing system. What you want from the unemployment compensation system would require major revamping of the system.

Also, what you receive in unemployment compensation comes from the employer. If you quit your job, why should an employer continue to pay you? Extra taxes on employers is certainly not good for the economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.

Allowing anyone without a job to draw unemployment for as long as they want is not solving poverty.

employers can't hire everyone. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of Employment.

That does not mean those who quit a job and do not seek another deserve unemployment.

it has to do with economics, not morals; our First Amendment applies.

What the hell are you talking about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What part of that has anything to do with you wanting unemployment compensation when you quit a job and do not seek another?

 

[WinterBorn]

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

He and I have been arguing this for a long time. He demands that unemployment compensation be given to people who voluntarily quit their job and do not look for another one. Welfare requires some investigation into income and assets. He wants to bypass all that and just get a check.

He often posts a quote to the effect of "capital should work. Only fools and horse work". He is trying to justify not working but still getting paid. He does so by extolling the benefits of more people having money to spend, while ignoring that taking money via taxes reduces more people's ability to spend.

the is employment at will.

Indeed it is. And, as I said before, the income comes with the employment. You quit a job, you also quit getting paid.

That solves nothing.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Correct. You quitting a job solves nothing. I have made no excuses. There is a federal doctrine concerning welfare. Address that instead of trying to pervert unemployment compensation away from its intended purpose & mission.

 

[danielpalos]

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

Yes, the infrastructure already exists in every state and federal district for welfare. What you want would be served by that existing system. What you want from the unemployment compensation system would require major revamping of the system.

Also, what you receive in unemployment compensation comes from the employer. If you quit your job, why should an employer continue to pay you? Extra taxes on employers is certainly not good for the economy.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

 

[WinterBorn]

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

If someone quits their job and does not seek another, they can use welfare to survive rather than twist a functioning system to suit their needs.

 

[WinterBorn]

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

Yes, the infrastructure already exists in every state and federal district for welfare. What you want would be served by that existing system. What you want from the unemployment compensation system would require major revamping of the system.

Also, what you receive in unemployment compensation comes from the employer. If you quit your job, why should an employer continue to pay you? Extra taxes on employers is certainly not good for the economy.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

A system already exists to provide what you want. What could be simpler.

And why do you insist on it being unemployment compensation instead of welfare. If you quit a job and don't look for another, why not draw welfare. Why do you care where the money comes from.

 

[WinterBorn]

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

That answer does not make any sense as an answer for the question. You want to create an entirely different bureaucracy to do what we already have one in place for.

Why?

 

[danielpalos]

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

If someone quits their job and does not seek another, they can use welfare to survive rather than twist a functioning system to suit their needs.

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

 

[danielpalos]

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

Yes, the infrastructure already exists in every state and federal district for welfare. What you want would be served by that existing system. What you want from the unemployment compensation system would require major revamping of the system.

Also, what you receive in unemployment compensation comes from the employer. If you quit your job, why should an employer continue to pay you? Extra taxes on employers is certainly not good for the economy.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

A system already exists to provide what you want. What could be simpler.

And why do you insist on it being unemployment compensation instead of welfare. If you quit a job and don't look for another, why not draw welfare. Why do you care where the money comes from.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

[WinterBorn]

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

no. i favor solving for the actual dilemma of Capitalism's natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment, in a market friendly manner.

If someone quits their job and does not seek another, they can use welfare to survive rather than twist a functioning system to suit their needs.

unemployment compensation is less expensive than means testing everyone.

Means testing is just determining whether or not a person can manage on their own. If you change the Unemployment Compensation system to make it pay every unemployed person, regardless of how they left their previous employer and how long they are unemployed, there will undoubtedly be some sort of means testing. People who have enough money in the bank or in investments to support themselves should not get a check from the gov't.

 

[danielpalos]

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

That answer does not make any sense as an answer for the question. You want to create an entirely different bureaucracy to do what we already have one in place for.

Why?

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

 

[WinterBorn]

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

pay attention story teller. the infrastructure already exists in every State and the federal districts.

Yes, the infrastructure already exists in every state and federal district for welfare. What you want would be served by that existing system. What you want from the unemployment compensation system would require major revamping of the system.

Also, what you receive in unemployment compensation comes from the employer. If you quit your job, why should an employer continue to pay you? Extra taxes on employers is certainly not good for the economy.

why? it should be simpler, not more difficult.

A system already exists to provide what you want. What could be simpler.

And why do you insist on it being unemployment compensation instead of welfare. If you quit a job and don't look for another, why not draw welfare. Why do you care where the money comes from.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Yes, I do. I have already explained it. You dislike it because it does not help you draw an unemployment check for nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

market based metrics under Any form of Capitalism, "free market story teller".

That answer does not make any sense as an answer for the question. You want to create an entirely different bureaucracy to do what we already have one in place for.

Why?

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

Duplication of systems is never efficient or cost effective.

And it is certainly not more cost effective to revamp an entire system to avoid a simple means test. And if you do manage to revamp the unemployment system, there will be a means test added.