What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
2,154
Points
1,918
There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Income Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Yang, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:

 
Last edited:
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party not work or die as right wingers prefer as their "moral" solution in our first world economy. It would help low skilled persons who have never worked go to (trade) school to find out what they are best and become more productive, happier individuals in our economy.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,805
Reaction score
9,742
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Which state? Could we get a link?
It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.
Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.
No problem, just show the link.
look up any at-will employment State you want. it really is that simple. My argument still holds because I am not a special pleading right winger. And, yes, you really do seem that annoying as is usual and customary for the Right Wing.
You are the one that cited the law, either back it up or don't, pretty easy, why do you make it so difficult?
 
Last edited:

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,627
Reaction score
5,916
Points
280
And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.
That has always been a disingenuous argument since wages are subject to market based arbitraje not just value of alleged productivity. Inflation still happens and costs are still passed on to consumers regardless. The point I am making is that right wingers only complain when the Poor make more money.
If it was a disingenuous argument, we would have already set the MW to $100/hr and eliminated poverty.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.
You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?
All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.
It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.
No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.
On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.
This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.
Okay, now tell me how that is not applied equally.
Simply having any for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of at-will employment doctrine.
And again you do not disappoint. Scratch the surface and you have nothing but vague generalities and slogans.

Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job. That's as dumb as complaining that you can't file your taxes jointly if you've never been married, or that you can't take emergency family leave because you've never had a family emergency. In order for something to be unequal protection under the law, you have to show that people TO WHOM THE LAW APPLIES are treated differently. That means that IF the UC law is written so that you can collect it just for not having a job and you were denied because you never held one, you would have a legitimate complaint. The law, however, states that you must have held a job and been laid off from it in order to collect. Therefore, it is NOT unequal protection under the law when you cannot collect because you never held a job. Do you understand that or are you going to continue with your fallacy?

Do you understand that UC does NOT apply to you if you've never had a job, or if you voluntarily quit your job? And since it doesn't apply to you, it's NOT unequal protection under the law that you can't collect. Got that?
In America, truck and bus drivers are not allowed to drive more than a set number of hours in a day and must stop when they reach that limit. Do you believe that every driver of every car on the road must stop driving when they hit that limit, or do you understand that the law doesn't apply to them so it's not unequal protection under the law that they can drive as long as they want to?
Lawyers, doctors and therapists are not allowed by law to talk about their clients. Is it unequal protection under that law that everyone else can talk about the people they work with? No, because the privacy laws don't apply to them.

And on it goes. I don't expect you to learn anything from this, but you really should.
I understand unequal protection of the laws is why we have is even dumber, endless wars right wingers never complain about, and don't want to pay wartime taxes for them with their tax cut economics. But hey, those forms of socialism on a national basis are always favored by the Right Wing who never have any better free market Capitalism solutions at lower cost.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,627
Reaction score
5,916
Points
280
Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party not work or die as right wingers prefer as their "moral" solution in our first world economy. It would help low skilled persons who have never worked go to (trade) school to find out what they are best and become more productive, happier individuals in our economy.
And I was right, you didn't learn. You ignored everything else I wrote, didn't you? Go back over it, read it, and try to react to it.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:
All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,627
Reaction score
5,916
Points
280
And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.
how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.
Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,567
Reaction score
12,738
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,627
Reaction score
5,916
Points
280
I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.
You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?
All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.
It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.
No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.
On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.
This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.
Okay, now tell me how that is not applied equally.
Simply having any for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of at-will employment doctrine.
And again you do not disappoint. Scratch the surface and you have nothing but vague generalities and slogans.

Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job. That's as dumb as complaining that you can't file your taxes jointly if you've never been married, or that you can't take emergency family leave because you've never had a family emergency. In order for something to be unequal protection under the law, you have to show that people TO WHOM THE LAW APPLIES are treated differently. That means that IF the UC law is written so that you can collect it just for not having a job and you were denied because you never held one, you would have a legitimate complaint. The law, however, states that you must have held a job and been laid off from it in order to collect. Therefore, it is NOT unequal protection under the law when you cannot collect because you never held a job. Do you understand that or are you going to continue with your fallacy?

Do you understand that UC does NOT apply to you if you've never had a job, or if you voluntarily quit your job? And since it doesn't apply to you, it's NOT unequal protection under the law that you can't collect. Got that?
In America, truck and bus drivers are not allowed to drive more than a set number of hours in a day and must stop when they reach that limit. Do you believe that every driver of every car on the road must stop driving when they hit that limit, or do you understand that the law doesn't apply to them so it's not unequal protection under the law that they can drive as long as they want to?
Lawyers, doctors and therapists are not allowed by law to talk about their clients. Is it unequal protection under that law that everyone else can talk about the people they work with? No, because the privacy laws don't apply to them.

And on it goes. I don't expect you to learn anything from this, but you really should.
I understand unequal protection of the laws is why we have is even dumber, endless wars right wingers never complain about, and don't want to pay wartime taxes for them with their tax cut economics. But hey, those forms of socialism on a national basis are always favored by the Right Wing who never have any better free market Capitalism solutions at lower cost.
You could try to actually say something about the post you are responding to.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,805
Reaction score
9,742
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party not work or die as right wingers prefer as their "moral" solution in our first world economy. It would help low skilled persons who have never worked go to (trade) school to find out what they are best and become more productive, happier individuals in our economy.
Why did you cut most of his post? It seems he hit it out of the park and you are only going quote one sentence and say the same tripe you have been saying for several years. You notice it is just you proposing it and no left wingers are supporting your BS. It seems they have hung you out to dry.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I am pretty sure that the solution that is being put forth for the homeless and mentally ill is way off base.
Which state? Could we get a link?
It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.
Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.
No problem, just show the link.
look up any at-will employment State you want. it really is that simple. My argument still holds because I am not a special pleading right winger. And, yes, you really do seem that annoying as is usual and customary for the Right Wing.
You are the one that cited the law, either back it up or don't, pretty easy, why do you make it so difficult?
I cited California labor code. Only the hard work advocating right wing is too lazy to look it up.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And as I've explained, those jobs are not generating more revenue than a higher MW. Now, if everyone is willing to pay higher prices and see jobs disappear, we can increase the MW. You simply cannot expect to drastically increase the MW with no impact to prices and jobs. If you could, we could go to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether. Obviously, we don't.
That has always been a disingenuous argument since wages are subject to market based arbitraje not just value of alleged productivity. Inflation still happens and costs are still passed on to consumers regardless. The point I am making is that right wingers only complain when the Poor make more money.
If it was a disingenuous argument, we would have already set the MW to $100/hr and eliminated poverty.
It would be better than the cost of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; go figure.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party not work or die as right wingers prefer as their "moral" solution in our first world economy. It would help low skilled persons who have never worked go to (trade) school to find out what they are best and become more productive, happier individuals in our economy.
And I was right, you didn't learn. You ignored everything else I wrote, didn't you? Go back over it, read it, and try to react to it.
Equal protection of at-will employment laws makes everything else you wrote irrelevant.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.
how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.
Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.
Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Is it any wonder why the left feels the need to censor right wingers who have nothing but right wing fantasy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,805
Reaction score
9,742
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
I am pretty sure that the solution that is being put forth for the homeless and mentally ill is way off base.
Which state? Could we get a link?
It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.
Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.
No problem, just show the link.
look up any at-will employment State you want. it really is that simple. My argument still holds because I am not a special pleading right winger. And, yes, you really do seem that annoying as is usual and customary for the Right Wing.
You are the one that cited the law, either back it up or don't, pretty easy, why do you make it so difficult?
I cited California labor code. Only the hard work advocating right wing is too lazy to look it up.
First you said federal, then you said state, then you said federal, except Montana and now you claim state again. Which is it? Only the dishonest can't back their words by posting a simple link.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.
You've already had this debate with me, many times, and I've given you the reasons why what you are advocating won't work. Why didn't you listen and learn?
All you had was fallacy not any valid arguments but still want to be Right. Only right wingers do that. Besides, I already know it will work simply because y'all have no arguments to the contrary. Fallacy is not a valid argument for rebuttal, just You wanting to be Right. You must be on the right wing.
It has been tried and a couple of countries and it failed. So, far your idea is a fallacy. You want to be right is just stupidity and has nothing to do with left or right, it has to do with economics.
No, it hasn't been tried. Equal protection of the laws is a civil right guaranteed in our federal and State Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law but are more than willing to blame the less fortunate.
On the contrary, the laws have been applied equally to those who work and those who do not. Your problem is your insistence on re-defining the words in the law to mean something they do not. Post THE TEXT of a specific law, (not just vague, unemployment compensation law) that you think is not being applied equally and I'll demonstrate.
This is one law that is not being applied equally to Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

It is a State (labor code) Law.
Okay, now tell me how that is not applied equally.
Simply having any for-cause criteria for unemployment compensation is unequal protection of at-will employment doctrine.
And again you do not disappoint. Scratch the surface and you have nothing but vague generalities and slogans.

Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job. That's as dumb as complaining that you can't file your taxes jointly if you've never been married, or that you can't take emergency family leave because you've never had a family emergency. In order for something to be unequal protection under the law, you have to show that people TO WHOM THE LAW APPLIES are treated differently. That means that IF the UC law is written so that you can collect it just for not having a job and you were denied because you never held one, you would have a legitimate complaint. The law, however, states that you must have held a job and been laid off from it in order to collect. Therefore, it is NOT unequal protection under the law when you cannot collect because you never held a job. Do you understand that or are you going to continue with your fallacy?

Do you understand that UC does NOT apply to you if you've never had a job, or if you voluntarily quit your job? And since it doesn't apply to you, it's NOT unequal protection under the law that you can't collect. Got that?
In America, truck and bus drivers are not allowed to drive more than a set number of hours in a day and must stop when they reach that limit. Do you believe that every driver of every car on the road must stop driving when they hit that limit, or do you understand that the law doesn't apply to them so it's not unequal protection under the law that they can drive as long as they want to?
Lawyers, doctors and therapists are not allowed by law to talk about their clients. Is it unequal protection under that law that everyone else can talk about the people they work with? No, because the privacy laws don't apply to them.

And on it goes. I don't expect you to learn anything from this, but you really should.
I understand unequal protection of the laws is why we have is even dumber, endless wars right wingers never complain about, and don't want to pay wartime taxes for them with their tax cut economics. But hey, those forms of socialism on a national basis are always favored by the Right Wing who never have any better free market Capitalism solutions at lower cost.
You could try to actually say something about the post you are responding to.
It was irrelevant.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Let me summarize this for you. You believe that it is unequal protection under the law that you cannot get unemployment compensation if you have never worked a job.
Yes, employment is at the will of either party not work or die as right wingers prefer as their "moral" solution in our first world economy. It would help low skilled persons who have never worked go to (trade) school to find out what they are best and become more productive, happier individuals in our economy.
Why did you cut most of his post? It seems he hit it out of the park and you are only going quote one sentence and say the same tripe you have been saying for several years. You notice it is just you proposing it and no left wingers are supporting your BS. It seems they have hung you out to dry.
It was irrelevant. Only right wingers are Always right in right wing fantasy.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,839
Reaction score
3,207
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I am pretty sure that the solution that is being put forth for the homeless and mentally ill is way off base.
Which state? Could we get a link?
It doesn't matter which State, it applies to Any at-will employment State.

Here is a more comprehensive definition:

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
You claimed you quoted a state law, which state? Every state has a different view, I'd like to see which state you are quoting from.
Not at all. At-will employment means the same in all States but Montana. What I cited is federal doctrine regarding employment at the will of either party in any at-will employment State.
No problem, just show the link.
look up any at-will employment State you want. it really is that simple. My argument still holds because I am not a special pleading right winger. And, yes, you really do seem that annoying as is usual and customary for the Right Wing.
You are the one that cited the law, either back it up or don't, pretty easy, why do you make it so difficult?
I cited California labor code. Only the hard work advocating right wing is too lazy to look it up.
First you said federal, then you said state, then you said federal, except Montana and now you claim state again. Which is it? Only the dishonest can't back their words by posting a simple link.
I cited a State labor code first and then the federal doctrine. Right wingers are simply too busy with right wing fantasy to come up with valid arguments for rebuttal.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,505
Reaction score
3,421
Points
195
you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?
Why are they mentally ill and homeless? Isn't our social safety net supposed to make sure that doesn't happen.
Only for people who seek help.

People with no address , no income, no valid ID, are outliers. They don't want to be part of the system.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top