Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
Yes, even those on unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can pay their share of taxes.There is no requirement UC be funded in that manner.What are you talking about? This is about solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It really is that simple.Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.You are confused. Means tested welfare is a social safety net not a capital safety net like UC can be, with equal protection of the laws.All you are doing is trying to remake UC into welfare. No, UC cannot solve simple poverty, because the program costs more for what benefits it provides.
Welfare is more efficient. If you refuse to work, you should apply for welfare.
The social safety net is what is required. It is to make sure no one perishes from poverty. It does not try to make sure people can live middleclass lives without working.
And you think providing tax dollars to people who do not need them will solve the problem? That is ridiculous. It increases the costs without any benefit.
I am talking about your claims that means testing should not happen, and that people who refuse to work (but are able) should be paid from the coffers of those who DO work.
It will have to be funded with tax dollars, you even said as much.
That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.
True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.
How so?
But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.
You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?
Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?
They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
'm not sure why so many Republicans are terrified of what Democrats MIGHT do.
Biden led Obama's economy recovery task force.
They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.
True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.
How so?
But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.
You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?
Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?
In fact, remember Solyndra?
A program that was started in 2005 under George Bush that Obama inherited. How the GOP has tried to crucify Obama over Bush's failed program.
Well guess what? Democrats took the failed program and turned it into a money maker.
That's what scares Republicans. Democrats keep fixing their mess and the American people haven't figured that out yet.
But they will.
Eventually., they will figure it out.
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.
The DoE loan program became a lightning rod during the 2012 presidential election for backing solar company Solyndra, which later went bankrupt. A few years later, it's in the black.www.csmonitor.com
You do know opec is worried prices will fall again, right? They held a meeting just today to discuss increasing supply and decided not too based on low demand. There is absolutely nothing going on right now that would indicate a price jump at all, much less more than doubling.are democrats going to be happy paying 5 bucks a gallon at the pump ? i mean the guy they voted for said he's going to crack down on the fossil fuel industry ! https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...n-draws-gop-attacks-with-call-transition-oil/
They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?
And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?
They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.
This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.
True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.
How so?
But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.
You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?
Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?
There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.
This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.
True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.
How so?
But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.
You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?
Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?
There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.
They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?
And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?
They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.
The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.
True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.
How so?
But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.
You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?
Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?
There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.
Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?
We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.
EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?
And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?
They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.
Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?
The law is the law. Employment is at the will of either party.This is not means tested welfare. UC solves simple poverty instead of having to waste money indefinitely on a fake war on poverty.That is what means tested welfare is for, not more market friendly UC.Employment is at the will of either party. Why would someone with a million dollars in the bank not learn how to invest instead of applying for UC?I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.No, I do not. If you have skills that are in demand, you are paid more. If you have nothing to offer, not even a willingness to work, you will not be compensated.
True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.
How so?
But you are not asking for equality. In your version, employers have to continue to pay after you cease to provide your labor. That is not equality.
You want tax dollars to be paid to people who refuse to work. And that this be done without them having to show they need the money. You could have a million dollars in the bank, but not be working and you demand pay from tax payers?
Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?
There is nothing market friendly about forcing others to pay you and income and you refusing to show you need it.
Oh, so having the applicant fill out a form is wasting money, but giving tax dollars to people who do not need it is not?
We have wasted enough time on derailing this topic.
EDD could hold the check at their office. Some charities offer mailbox services.They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?
And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?
They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.
Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?
And what the chart also shows that there were bigger increase (high to low) in the rate than during Trump brief tenure. The climb was there when Trump stepped into office.An upward trending economy legacy of the "black guy"....no. We already know the only thing that happens with republicans is the Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer.
So why did the unemployment numbers drop and wages increase with Trump in office?
View attachment 423111
You need to look at you're graph again.
When Barry took office in 2008 the economy took a noticeable loss and the gain was slower than in previous years.
It only dropped with the advent of the Scamdemic.
And if you look at the point Trump was elected it started to climb.
Oh bullshit.
I got cher graph right here, plot this
See that plunge to the left? That's where the O'bama starts. Now follow the trajectory.
You are the one claiming that. EDD can also hold the check at the office.They can hold them at the office or get direct deposit. Any simple market based solutions may do.They will be able to afford market friendly solutions once they can obtain UC for simply being unemployed.UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested welfare.Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.
That is absolutely right. If there is a demand for your labor, you will be properly compensated. If you offer nothing of value, you will not.
And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.
If the changes were made to UC that you want, there would be means tests added. If you want to have an income from tax dollars, you have to prove you need them.
Yes, it does. If you have the money to live, why would you receive our tax dollars? Tax dollars are monies that have been forcibly taken from workers and consumers.
Yeah, you have tried this before. Most homelessness is due to drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. Sending them a check (to what address?) when they have no way of cashing it is ridiculous!
And you make that claim without addressing where the check is mailed, where the check is cashed, and how their money will be protected. And they will not go into rehab if they can continue to drink and do drugs on the tax payer's dime.
Again, where do we mail the check?
Where do they get it cashed?
And as for the security of their income, you want $14 an hour. At 40 hours a week, that is $560.00. It comes to a little over $29,000 per year. So we mail them a check every month for $2,426.67. And you expect them to keep this in their pockets? Living on the street?
They can qualify for welfare and get medical benefits that will pay for their rehab and housing.
Direct deposit? At what bank? What bank will let you open an account without an address or an ID?
