Why do poor communities exist in America?

[danielpalos]

And that changed with a SCOTUS ruling and a constitutional amendment.

But you did not answer the question. If the courts ruled tomorrow that anyone without a job could get unemployment, how would that be funded? The only mechanism now is unemployment insurance. But charging them would bankrupt numerous businesses.

And Unemployment Compensation is based on what you made at your previous job, with a limit on how much. For those, like you, who have not worked in years, how do they determine how much the cash strapped system will pay each person?

The legislature can easily find ways and means to generate revenue to pay for it since a perpetual economic stimulus like that generates tax revenue as well. Solving simple poverty must be a fixed, federal Standard in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is the biggest problem with your plan, daniel.

You want it all to be funded by tax dollars. It is currently funded by unemployment insurance charged to the businesses.

The population of CA is 39.7 billion. Unemployment is at around 8.3%. That is 3,295,100 people who are unemployed and actively seeking work. People like you are not counted in the unemployment numbers.

You want to be paid the equivalent of $15 an hour for a 40 hour week. That will not happen. Currently, the maximum unemployment compensation in CA is $450 a week. That comes to $23,400.00 per year. If CA had to pay $23,400 per year to 3,295,100 people they would have to spend around $77 billion dollars. The state budget is $227 billion.

Do you actually think the state legislature will pass a bill that will put 34% of the state budget into an unending payout to unemployment? CA spend $27 billion on education (K-12), but you want them to change the unemployment compensation laws so that it will cost the state more than they spend on education for every child from Kindergarten to 12th grade?

It will never happen. If it is pushed, they unemployment compensation program will fold.

Yes, I believe full employment of capital resources can easily generate enough revenue to pay for it. Right-wing tax cut economics is worse and only leaves us with failing infrastructure.

 

[WinterBorn]

The increase in economic activity helps pay for it. More people spending money and help local business also generates tax revenue.

Still no answer on who repays the loans.

 

[WinterBorn]

The legislature can easily find ways and means to generate revenue to pay for it since a perpetual economic stimulus like that generates tax revenue as well. Solving simple poverty must be a fixed, federal Standard in our Republic.

First you will have to convince the legislature that they should use tax dollars to fund your New & Improved unemployment compensation. Good luck convincing them to spend 34% of the state budget on UC. Oh, and when you tell them that there will not be an end to the payments, like there currently are, I am sure they will jump at the chance.

And if the legislature can so easily find ways to generate revenue to pay for it, why has CA run a deficit so many years?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, I believe full employment of capital resources can easily generate enough revenue to pay for it. Right-wing tax cut economics is worse and only leaves us with failing infrastructure.

You can "believe" all you want. The fact is, adding $77 billion to the state budget is catastrophic. The legislature will have to face their constituents. And spending 34% of the state budget on unemployment payments, while the entire education system gets 27%, will not look good.

Oh, and the 2x multiplier won't be there when tax dollars are funding the program.

 

[sparky]

Why do right-wingers prefer to "hate on the Poor" instead of solving simple poverty via market friendly means? We have a first world economy not a third world economy.

Because they're an easy target vs. those who sold us out via globalism

Welfare in any form is meant to dsolve poverty in any form sijmpple or otherwise.

Welfare by definition is measnt in theory to solve poverty whether simple or otherwise.

so how's that workin' out??

promote the general Welfare

a constitutional excerpt meaning 'well being', not to be confused with 'welfare queens'

You simply have no understanding of economics.

mirco or macro?

~S~

 

[danielpalos]

Still no answer on who repays the loans.

Only if you have no understanding of economics or a "rising tide lifting all boats" so they can pay more taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

You can "believe" all you want. The fact is, adding $77 billion to the state budget is catastrophic. The legislature will have to face their constituents. And spending 34% of the state budget on unemployment payments, while the entire education system gets 27%, will not look good.

Oh, and the 2x multiplier won't be there when tax dollars are funding the program.

You can believe what you want as well. Solving simple poverty cannot be a Bad thing for Any economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Because they're an easy target vs. those who sold us out via globalism




so how's that workin' out??


a constitutional excerpt meaning 'well being', not to be confused with 'welfare queens'

mirco or macro?

~S~

The general welfare cannot mean the general Badfare nor the general Warfare as right-wingers would prefer.

Macro.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only if you have no understanding of economics or a "rising tide lifting all boats" so they can pay more taxes.

And that works for a lot of people to make a little more. But one person or entity will have to be responsible for repaying the loan.

 

[WinterBorn]

You can believe what you want as well. Solving simple poverty cannot be a Bad thing for Any economy.

When you have to pay $77 million to solve simple poverty, you can bet they will be using a means test to make sure only those who NEED it will get it.

 

[WinterBorn]

The general welfare cannot mean the general Badfare nor the general Warfare as right-wingers would prefer.

Macro.

It means to take care of the portion of our population that cannot take care of themselves. Not those who simply decided they do not want to work.

 

[danielpalos]

And that works for a lot of people to make a little more. But one person or entity will have to be responsible for repaying the loan.

Can you explain why You believe that is the case?

 

[danielpalos]

When you have to pay $77 million to solve simple poverty, you can bet they will be using a means test to make sure only those who NEED it will get it.

Is that why we have so many homeless with an alleged War on Poverty that has been around longer than our conflict in Afghanistan?

And, right-wing tax cut economics is worse and only ensures we never have enough money to continually upgrade infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

It means to take care of the portion of our population that cannot take care of themselves. Not those who simply decided they do not want to work.

Thanks for proving you don't really care about being Legal to the Law only "hating on the Poor".

 

[WinterBorn]

Can you explain why You believe that is the case?

Who is taking out the loan? The state? Do you think the state will take on that huge burden, with interest? And who has to approve taking a $77 billion dollar loan? That won't happen fast, that is for sure.

Unemployment compensation will be declared bankrupt and no one will receive any assistance. Of course, that will make it so that there is equal protection under the law, won't it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Is that why we have so many homeless with an alleged War on Poverty that has been around longer than our conflict in Afghanistan?

And, right-wing tax cut economics is worse and only ensures we never have enough money to continually upgrade infrastructure.

I have explained before, but you choose to ignore that facts. The overwhelming majority of homeless people have addiction or mental health issues. Handing them checks will not help them. In fact, those with addiction problems will be caused grave harm, even death, with this new source of income.

You claim to be concerned about the homeless. But your claims ring hollow. This is just an excuse for you to get paid without having to work.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks for proving you don't really care about being Legal to the Law only "hating on the Poor".

I have not hated on the poor. Not once. So that is an outright lie.

I have, however, stated that I object to giving my hard earned money to someone who is capable of working, but refuses to do so. Someone who has called me a fool for working to support myself.

 

[danielpalos]

Who is taking out the loan? The state? Do you think the state will take on that huge burden, with interest? And who has to approve taking a $77 billion dollar loan? That won't happen fast, that is for sure.

Unemployment compensation will be declared bankrupt and no one will receive any assistance. Of course, that will make it so that there is equal protection under the law, won't it?

We have a Tenth Amendment. Any complex case can take that into consideration. It is a simple matter of faithfully executing existing federal doctrine regarding the concept of employment at will.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

 

[danielpalos]

I have explained before, but you choose to ignore that facts. The overwhelming majority of homeless people have addiction or mental health issues. Handing them checks will not help them. In fact, those with addiction problems will be caused grave harm, even death, with this new source of income.

You claim to be concerned about the homeless. But your claims ring hollow. This is just an excuse for you to get paid without having to work.

You can't blame all of it on Individuals. Besides, what good is means testing if they can't get people with actual (mental) disabilities off the street?

You make it seem like you don't believe in Capitalism.