What would a socialist America look like?

[Papageorgio]

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

 

[danielpalos]

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

They merely need an income if they are only unemployed. That falls under the department of employment development.

Once again, how will you provide the income? Mail it to the 9th Street Overpass?

You know my questions are valid and that you are wrong. But you are too obstinate to admit it because you want an income for sitting in your parent's basement.

A simple problem for EDD to handle.

Really? How?

it is a Government agency.

 

[danielpalos]

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

There is no provision for UC to act as welfare either.

Because it is not welfare. It is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

 

[Papageorgio]

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.

 

[WinterBorn]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

I admire your persistence in dealing with danielpalos. He's impervious to fact and logic and simply will not learn. We've gotten him to the point where we've shown that his own numbers mean annual expenditures of more than $3 trillion, but he won't say how his plan will pay for itself, only keeps insisting that it will, and keeps changing word definitions to make his ideas sound palatable.

Eh, I understand that Daniel is a lost cause.

But there are others, especially young people, who come here. They read his stuff and might accept it as fact instead of fantasy.

 

[initforme]

There will always be welfare. It goes with the system. Yes it needs tweaking but it is necessary. Someone has to fill low paying jobs and measly pay like 15 dollars per hour wont pay the bills in todays america unless one lives with their parents. There are those who will say it can be done but they know they are lying.

 

[WinterBorn]

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

 

[Papageorgio]

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Trolling again? Trolling for the sake of driving up your post count is dumb, maybe you can find a cure for your cause instead.

 

[WinterBorn]

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

 

[danielpalos]

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.

on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.

 

[WinterBorn]

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

There is no provision for UC to act as welfare either.

Because it is not welfare. It is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

Not as you describe it. Your version allows for indefinite drawing of a check, not seeking a job, and even collecting when you quit a job or are fired for cause.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

i gainsay your contention.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.

on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.

And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.

 

[danielpalos]

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.

and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.

What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?

solve for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[WinterBorn]

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

i gainsay your contention.

Feel free. But the facts are the facts. The welfare system is better prepared to deal with long term issues. UC is a temporary system.

 

[WinterBorn]

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Trolling again? Trolling for the sake of driving up your post count is dumb, maybe you can find a cure for your cause instead.

i can't be trolling if You are the one with nothing but diversion.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

You are the one making false claims and refusing to address my questions.

 

[danielpalos]

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.

In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.

Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.

another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.