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

[danielpalos]

You tell nothing but stories, story teller.

We should bear true witness to our own laws.

I tell stories??? How old are you, Daniel? Answer that before you accuse me of stories.

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

 

[WinterBorn]

You tell nothing but stories, story teller.

We should bear true witness to our own laws.

I tell stories??? How old are you, Daniel? Answer that before you accuse me of stories.

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

 

[danielpalos]

You tell nothing but stories, story teller.

We should bear true witness to our own laws.

I tell stories??? How old are you, Daniel? Answer that before you accuse me of stories.

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[WinterBorn]

You tell nothing but stories, story teller.

We should bear true witness to our own laws.

I tell stories??? How old are you, Daniel? Answer that before you accuse me of stories.

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered. This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered. If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?

 

[danielpalos]

You tell nothing but stories, story teller.

We should bear true witness to our own laws.

I tell stories??? How old are you, Daniel? Answer that before you accuse me of stories.

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered. This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered. If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?

old enough win my arguments.

 

[WinterBorn]

I tell stories??? How old are you, Daniel? Answer that before you accuse me of stories.

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered. This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered. If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?

old enough win my arguments.

Really? You haven't yet. Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.

Why won't you answer a simply question? Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?

 

[danielpalos]

you need valid arguments not gossip. you only know how to stereotype and gossip. you have nothing but ad hominems.

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered. This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered. If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?

old enough win my arguments.

Really? You haven't yet. Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.

Why won't you answer a simply question? Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?

that isn't the question you asked, before.

it must be a matter of principle, in some cases.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you want to

You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told. That is an ad hominem. Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor. Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered. This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered. If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?

old enough win my arguments.

Really? You haven't yet. Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.

Why won't you answer a simply question? Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?

that isn't the question you asked, before.

it must be a matter of principle, in some cases.

A slight rewording of the question, while not changing the meaning, does not change your refusal to answer.

I say you are much younger than you claimed to be when you opened your account here at USMB.

Simple question. How old are you?

 

[danielpalos]

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you want to

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered. This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered. If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?

old enough win my arguments.

Really? You haven't yet. Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.

Why won't you answer a simply question? Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?

that isn't the question you asked, before.

it must be a matter of principle, in some cases.

A slight rewording of the question, while not changing the meaning, does not change your refusal to answer.

I say you are much younger than you claimed to be when you opened your account here at USMB.

Simple question. How old are you?

i say you have lousy arguments and lousy, "male intuition". are you sure you are male?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

Ever hear of the Global Citizen movement?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

Ever hear of the Global Citizen movement?

The left is working toward solving simple poverty through equal application of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party, for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

 

[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.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so.

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you want to

If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance. Something unemployment compensation does not provide.

it would be obvious if you understood economics. only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.

Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months. That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much. I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies. Some of them were pretty cheap. At least the premiums. They run between $100 a month and $175 a month. However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible. Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k. Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month. Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible. Not going to work at all. Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour. But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale. YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible. And there are job training programs available.

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.

So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down? Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication? Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.

It is about simplification. Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty. It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.

What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?