So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

You make up your own stories. Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment. You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

They hold onto it for personal pickup.

They also should issue State ids.

See my previous post.

you don't know what you are talking about. besides, a third party could do it as well.

And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party. Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.

some places can do it for free.

 

[danielpalos]

Only illegals don't care about the law.

LMAO!! Right. No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud. That is hilarious. This may be your dumbest comment yet.

you miss the point. with so many people opting to not work, getting work should be easier.

That has nothing to do with your comment of "Only illegals don't care about the law."

But I will say, if people OPT to not work, they don't get paid. That is pretty simple. People with children present a different set of problems, and they will always receive the benefits of social programs.

they aren't Getting Paid to work, they are getting Compensated for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. There is a difference.

People who opt out of working are the natural rate of employment??? Ok, that is much simpler to solve. If you choose not to work, you are also choosing not to get paid. Your bad choices do not warrant access to tax dollars.

employment is at the will of either party, for unemployment compensation. that is equality.

 

[danielpalos]

i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.

Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Your alleged morals mean Nothing.

Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.

why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating? it is self-evident, story teller.

Once again, the capital circulates very well. Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?

why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons. Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.

But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.

You just want a way to get money without having to actually work. You don't need the money. Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother. You are not homeless. You are not hungry. You are not out in the cold. You just want money to play. Social services and state programs should never be used for that.

The proof of what I say? Your own words. "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."

Solving for simple poverty is the goal. That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy. That is all.

Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.

lol. that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not without a state ID.

Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.

They don't. And I see no reason they will. So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.

it can easily be done. there is no need for excuses.

Easily? All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.

simplification is less expensive.

Well, your reply is certainly simple. But inaccurate. Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.

 

[WinterBorn]

Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Your alleged morals mean Nothing.

Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.

why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating? it is self-evident, story teller.

Once again, the capital circulates very well. Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?

why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?

Social services are not to circulate capital. They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.

 

[WinterBorn]

The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons. Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.

But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.

You just want a way to get money without having to actually work. You don't need the money. Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother. You are not homeless. You are not hungry. You are not out in the cold. You just want money to play. Social services and state programs should never be used for that.

The proof of what I say? Your own words. "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."

Solving for simple poverty is the goal. That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy. That is all.

Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.

lol. that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.

Those programs provide what the poor actually need. Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs. It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.

 

[WinterBorn]

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

They hold onto it for personal pickup.

They also should issue State ids.

See my previous post.

you don't know what you are talking about. besides, a third party could do it as well.

And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party. Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.

some places can do it for free.

It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security. Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks. And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like. You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks. And lastly, a method of printing the checks.

You know someone who would do that for free?

 

[danielpalos]

Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.

They don't. And I see no reason they will. So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.

it can easily be done. there is no need for excuses.

Easily? All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.

simplification is less expensive.

Well, your reply is certainly simple. But inaccurate. Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.

lol. you simply understand nothing. unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Your alleged morals mean Nothing.

Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.

why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating? it is self-evident, story teller.

Once again, the capital circulates very well. Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?

why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?

Social services are not to circulate capital. They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.

why do we have any homeless?

 

[danielpalos]

The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons. Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.

But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.

You just want a way to get money without having to actually work. You don't need the money. Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother. You are not homeless. You are not hungry. You are not out in the cold. You just want money to play. Social services and state programs should never be used for that.

The proof of what I say? Your own words. "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."

Solving for simple poverty is the goal. That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy. That is all.

Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.

lol. that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.

Those programs provide what the poor actually need. Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs. It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.

an income is helpful under capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

They hold onto it for personal pickup.

They also should issue State ids.

See my previous post.

you don't know what you are talking about. besides, a third party could do it as well.

And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party. Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.

some places can do it for free.

It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security. Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks. And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like. You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks. And lastly, a method of printing the checks.

You know someone who would do that for free?

anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.

 

[WinterBorn]

They don't. And I see no reason they will. So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.

it can easily be done. there is no need for excuses.

Easily? All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.

simplification is less expensive.

Well, your reply is certainly simple. But inaccurate. Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.

lol. you simply understand nothing. unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.

Why must it be? Because you want it to be?

The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less. That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms. That costs little to nothing.

I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.

 

[WinterBorn]

Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.

why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating? it is self-evident, story teller.

Once again, the capital circulates very well. Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?

why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?

Social services are not to circulate capital. They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.

why do we have any homeless?

There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before. But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues. Which you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[WinterBorn]

The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons. Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.

But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.

You just want a way to get money without having to actually work. You don't need the money. Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother. You are not homeless. You are not hungry. You are not out in the cold. You just want money to play. Social services and state programs should never be used for that.

The proof of what I say? Your own words. "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."

Solving for simple poverty is the goal. That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy. That is all.

Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.

lol. that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.

Those programs provide what the poor actually need. Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs. It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.

an income is helpful under capitalism.

Sure it is. I'm also sure it is helpful if you want to take women out to dinner. But $470 a week does not pay rent, utilities, transportation costs, buy food and pay for healthcare.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Involuntary Celibate males? The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too. (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum) What's up with this? Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?

Never heard of it. Don't know anyone like that either. Even the ugliest people I know all have wives or husbands or girlfriend/boyfriend.

Sounds like internet nonsense to me

 

[WinterBorn]

See my previous post.

you don't know what you are talking about. besides, a third party could do it as well.

And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party. Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.

some places can do it for free.

It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security. Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks. And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like. You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks. And lastly, a method of printing the checks.

You know someone who would do that for free?

anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.

Mailboxes Ect?? LMAO!! Are you daft? YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect?? No, it could not be setup there.

 

[WinterBorn]

See my previous post.

you don't know what you are talking about. besides, a third party could do it as well.

And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party. Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.

some places can do it for free.

It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security. Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks. And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like. You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks. And lastly, a method of printing the checks.

You know someone who would do that for free?

anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.

And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?

 

[danielpalos]

it can easily be done. there is no need for excuses.

Easily? All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.

simplification is less expensive.

Well, your reply is certainly simple. But inaccurate. Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.

lol. you simply understand nothing. unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.

Why must it be? Because you want it to be?

The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less. That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms. That costs little to nothing.

I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.

lol. simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.

 

[danielpalos]

why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating? it is self-evident, story teller.

Once again, the capital circulates very well. Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?

why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?

Social services are not to circulate capital. They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.

why do we have any homeless?

There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before. But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues. Which you refuse to acknowledge.

anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.