hey democrats ! are yall ready for 5 dollar a gallon gasoline ?

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested 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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

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.

Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested 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.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

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.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

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.

Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.

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.

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.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested 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.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

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.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.

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.

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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested 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.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

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.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

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.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

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?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested 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.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

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.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

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!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

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.

Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.

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.

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.

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.

There is no requirement UC be funded in that manner.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

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.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

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?

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?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, once again you disagree without disputing anything I posted. Sad.

Not at all. Demand and supply is what makes capitalism do what it does.

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.

Thanks for agreeing with me. UC is about compensating for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to ensure more efficient market based arbitrage.

And yet, you insist on changing UC into welfare.

You keep missing the capital point. UC actually solves for economic phenomena under our form of Capitalism,unlike means tested 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.

Not in our at-will employment States. That is the Whole and Entire Point.

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.

Employment is at the will of either party. We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

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!

UC for simply being unemployed means they can then afford rehab in a market friendly manner.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

Not at all; means testing is what our alleged War on Poverty does. It has not solved the problem in over thirty years.

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.

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.

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.

There is no requirement UC be funded in that manner.

It will have to be funded with tax dollars, you even said as much.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

There can be no lawful requirement to work in an at-will employment State. States cannot arbitrarily change that.

True. And there can be no lawful requirement to provide UC for someone who does not qualify and is not seeking employment.

Equal application and protection of the laws can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to promote and provide for the general welfare.

How so?

UC on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

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.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming the State has to fund UC not employers.

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?

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?

Why would someone object to showing a need before tax dollars were spent providing them an income?

 

[Ben Thomson]

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/

' On Wednesday last week, the day before Thanksgiving when perhaps few investors were paying much attention to the direction of oil futures, The Wall Street Journal reported that it had just come into possession of ExxonMobil internal documents. And according to these documents, the oil giant is anticipating lower oil prices "for much of the next decade."..so you really think gas will soon be $5 a gallon?...Why ExxonMobil, Phillips 66, and ConocoPhillips Stocks Crashed Today | The Motley Fool