What would a socialist America look like?

It takes a job of at least 30 dollars per hour to reach middle class in todays america. Post high school education is the way.
 
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.
It is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. your "morals" don't matter.
 
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.

Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
 
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.
EDD is a Government department.
 
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.

Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
how is that?
 
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.
EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
 
There are some (Socialists, Communists, leftists, Marxists, all the same shit) that are too stupid to survive without government rule.
Yopu would not survive witrhout government rule.

No maintenance of our infrastructure. No police or firemen. Banks running rampant without rules. Corps screwing you out of money, no workplace protections. No schools. no legal sysatem, no military to protect us.
 
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.

Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
how is that?

UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most.
 
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.
EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.
 
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.

Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
how is that?

UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most.
makes some of us wonder, why we even have a "McCarthy era phrase in our pledge".
 
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.
EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
 
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.
EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.
 
Letting corporations do whatever they want would also be a huge disaster. That would be a complete plutonomy. Gotta have some regulations. I don't yrusttthem to do right if not policed some.
 
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.
EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.
 
EDD is a Government department.

Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.
Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.
 
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.

Then they will refuse the money and remain homeless. You have no understanding of the homeless issue in this country. You need to know your cause if you want a cure.
 
Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.

Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.

You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.

Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.
Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.

And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.

You're making it very difficult to not call you Barbie. I'm aware of those theories and I know that they often don't work all that well when put to use. That's why I insist that you do some heavy lifting and show us the numbers. I already showed you how much your plan would cost, now it's up to you to show how much it will generate. Do not think for a moment that you can just say, "a positive multiplier will magically fix things". And don't think I've forgotten that you're completely ignoring the millions that will simply stop working, because they can get the same amount smoking pot in Mom's basement. That will make the numbers generating wealth smaller and the number taking it larger. Also include in your calculations the reality that someone making minimum wage often gets more back than they pay in taxes.
 
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.

They have a right and that is where some want to be. It’s obvious you have never worked with the homeless. Tons of programs out there to help those in need. I know a former homeless person who now owns a furniture store chain and continues to give back to his community. I know several that were homeless, that accepted help and now have their own apartments. They are examples that the current system works. There are failures, you can’t force people to change and you can’t force them into housing if they refuse.

Your lack of understanding of the poor and homeless is no solved as easy as you believe in your search of being lazy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top