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

[danielpalos]

i don't believe you. why not show actual and comparative costs?

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met.

you understand nothing. why tell stories?

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

 

[danielpalos]

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

lol. you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.

LMAO!! I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim? Too funny.

No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check. Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).

employment is at the will of either party. there are no other requirements.

So you are free to quit your job. This deprives your employer of your labor. And since you voluntarily quit, you have no check from unemployment compensation. THAT is equal protection under the law.

why is there that restriction on equal protection of the law? do we need a simpler system.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why? When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive. Did you do any research on it? Do you have a link?

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met.

you understand nothing. why tell stories?

YOu quoted my post. Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?

 

[danielpalos]

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?

a lack of equal protection of the law. i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.

Do you? Funny, you have not shown them. What is unequal?

lol. protection of the law. there should be no denial, disparagement, or infringement to the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party.

Why? You expect employers to hire you whether they want you or not? You get to quit if you want, and they get to fire you. That is equal protection.

you simply tell stories. employment is at the will of either party. there is no requirement to seek employment in an at-will employment State. compensation is for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, that is all.

 

[danielpalos]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

 

[danielpalos]

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met.

you understand nothing. why tell stories?

YOu quoted my post. Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?

employment is at the will of either party.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer? If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met.

you understand nothing. why tell stories?

YOu quoted my post. Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?

employment is at the will of either party.

How is that explaining what is inaccurate about my saying:
"That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met"

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[danielpalos]

you have no understanding of economics. solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.

That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met.

you understand nothing. why tell stories?

YOu quoted my post. Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?

employment is at the will of either party.

How is that explaining what is inaccurate about my saying:
"That is happening now with the welfare programs. People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs. You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
People will still be poor. But they will have their needs met"

It means you have absolutely no standing and are merely being frivolous in public venues.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

I've offered no excuses and you have not answered the question.

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"? How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand. and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.

First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job. That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money. It decreases it. Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money. But another group loses more than that group gains.

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.

It is enforced. It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.

 

[WinterBorn]

So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.

Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

I've offered no excuses and you have not answered the question.

Solving for simple poverty both promotes and provides for the general welfare.