Major prewar battles in Middle East. Americans need their AR-15 assault rifles.Who says we don't need them?!

[danielpalos]

Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.

Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...

If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.

Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.

The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.

Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.

With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.

I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.

Why do you believe that? Unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State can accomplish the same thing in a more market friendly manner.

It's because our current welfare system is grossly inefficient. The most market-friendly approach (short of not having any welfare) is UBI, because it involves the fewest federal employees while putting the burden on the feds rather than on employers.

Also, as far as mental health goes, expecting the mentally ill to make proper decisions on their own mental health is flawed. People with minor disorders can handle that, but you were talking about homeless people earlier, who typically are on the more severe end of the spectrum. A lot of those people can't really help themselves, which is why they need to be committed to an institution to protect themselves and the rest of society.

There is no requirement that unemployment compensation be funded by employers. General taxes would be better than any directation. Unemployment is basically an externality to any firm and should be handled by the State anyway.

 

[Utilitarian]

Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.

Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...

If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.

Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.

The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.

Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.

With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.

I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.

Why do you believe that? Unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State can accomplish the same thing in a more market friendly manner.

It's because our current welfare system is grossly inefficient. The most market-friendly approach (short of not having any welfare) is UBI, because it involves the fewest federal employees while putting the burden on the feds rather than on employers.

Also, as far as mental health goes, expecting the mentally ill to make proper decisions on their own mental health is flawed. People with minor disorders can handle that, but you were talking about homeless people earlier, who typically are on the more severe end of the spectrum. A lot of those people can't really help themselves, which is why they need to be committed to an institution to protect themselves and the rest of society.

There is no requirement that unemployment compensation be funded by employers. General taxes would be better than any directation. Unemployment is basically an externality to any firm and should be handled by the State anyway.

I'd be open to this if we reduced welfare in other aspects to lower overall spending.

 

[danielpalos]

Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.

Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...

If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.

Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.

The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.

Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.

With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.

I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.

Why do you believe that? Unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State can accomplish the same thing in a more market friendly manner.

It's because our current welfare system is grossly inefficient. The most market-friendly approach (short of not having any welfare) is UBI, because it involves the fewest federal employees while putting the burden on the feds rather than on employers.

Also, as far as mental health goes, expecting the mentally ill to make proper decisions on their own mental health is flawed. People with minor disorders can handle that, but you were talking about homeless people earlier, who typically are on the more severe end of the spectrum. A lot of those people can't really help themselves, which is why they need to be committed to an institution to protect themselves and the rest of society.

There is no requirement that unemployment compensation be funded by employers. General taxes would be better than any directation. Unemployment is basically an externality to any firm and should be handled by the State anyway.

I'd be open to this if we reduced welfare in other aspects to lower overall spending.

We could be lowering the cost of Government by improving the market based efficiency of social services. Who would want the hassle of getting means tested if they didn't need it?

 

[Utilitarian]

Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.

Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...

If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.

Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.

The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.

Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.

With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.

I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.

Why do you believe that? Unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State can accomplish the same thing in a more market friendly manner.

It's because our current welfare system is grossly inefficient. The most market-friendly approach (short of not having any welfare) is UBI, because it involves the fewest federal employees while putting the burden on the feds rather than on employers.

Also, as far as mental health goes, expecting the mentally ill to make proper decisions on their own mental health is flawed. People with minor disorders can handle that, but you were talking about homeless people earlier, who typically are on the more severe end of the spectrum. A lot of those people can't really help themselves, which is why they need to be committed to an institution to protect themselves and the rest of society.

There is no requirement that unemployment compensation be funded by employers. General taxes would be better than any directation. Unemployment is basically an externality to any firm and should be handled by the State anyway.

I'd be open to this if we reduced welfare in other aspects to lower overall spending.

We could be lowering the cost of Government by improving the market based efficiency of social services. Who would want the hassle of getting means tested if they didn't need it?

As long as federal employees are mostly lazy and hard to fire, I have serious doubts about that.

 

[danielpalos]

People could be being market friendly and going to school while on unemployment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels

the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

But obviously any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.
No where is the federal government authorized to any weapons jurisdiction and the 9th and 10th amendments then say they are prohibited and jurisdiction.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, or political fortitude.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

and,

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And

no one that has knowledge of the bill of rights takes you seriously
gun control violates the second amendment

 

[danielpalos]

We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels

the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

But obviously any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.
No where is the federal government authorized to any weapons jurisdiction and the 9th and 10th amendments then say they are prohibited and jurisdiction.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, or political fortitude.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

and,

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And

no one that has knowledge of the bill of rights takes you seriously
gun control violates the second amendment

Parrots is what right wingers immitate the best.

 

[whitehall]

I don't get the connection. Is this a left wing trolling post?

 

[danielpalos]

Right-wingers allegedly have a problem with illegals and illegality but can't be bothered to be legal to our own laws.