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

[danielpalos]

As I have shown you in previous discussion, the majority of homeless people either have mental health issues, addiction issues, or a combination of the two.

Your idea that having a paycheck would mean the mentally ill would seek treatment and reintegrate into society is laughable. The mentally ill who are homeless need more than a few sessions a week with a therapist. Most would need to be institutionalized. We cannot do that if they don't want to go.

As for addicts (which includes alcoholics), they would have to want to live in a home more than they want to continue to do whatever drugs they do. They would not make that choice to get clean in order to get off the street. In fact, they have already made that choice.

All you have shown is that right wingers only know how to repeat historical mistakes and blame the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Getting a mentally ill person to take medication is very difficult.

But leaving them on the street is easy for right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY

If that works for everyone, why have we had a War on Poverty for over a few decades? Anecdotal evidence is simply that. The proof is, why do you or any right wingers complain about taxes when it is soo easy, according to right wingers, to simply improve themselves through hard work and get a job that pays enough so you don't feel any need to complain about taxes. Simply whining about taxes is proof right wingers are simply wrong even though they are on the right wing.

it's not easy. It was not easy for me or for my four brothers. It is a fact that I have---in the course of my long life, never complained about income tax---I simply calculated my income was half of that which "they said I was getting". I have been a registered democrat since the day I turned 21 ---EONS ago----by heredity ---my grandmother, born in 1899, marched and demonstrated Pro-Union as a sweatshop worker as a teenager. Just how EASY is it supposed to be? I am now beginning to complain about --TAXES because
the country has turned to BREAD AND CIRCUSES

Blame the right wing not the left. They are the ones who have no drug addicted excuse for their endless wars they can't win.

 

[danielpalos]

So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.

I cited a State labor code, which is something not nothing as you claim and then I cited the general understanding of the federal doctrine which is also something, not nothing as you claim. In right wing fantasy you can be Right for simply being on the right wing.

You have provided no proof, so no link means you are lying. Thanks for proving again you have nothing.

I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law. You have less standing than I do.

I am asking for proof and you have nothing and still have nothing so you by virtue of being ignorant and not having links, you are FAKE NEWS!!! If you can't supply information, you are FAKE NEWS!!! You lost your whole argument. Take care FAKE NEWS boi.

Employment is at the will of either party in any at-will employment State. States have no authority to create laws via unequal protection.

 

[hadit]

No..not a cost savings at all -------------------druggies chose their own problems
Throwing money at medical help provides them free housing, free medical to get drugs, free food------and only improves their living standards at the cost of taxpayers.

Yes, it is a cost savings since we would not need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

To summarize, you want to be paid $15/hour to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot. Is that about the size of it?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

right wing moderators have banned me several times for clarification.

 

[Papageorgio]

You don't seem to understand mental health do you? Drugs are usually self medication for those with mental health issues, the other side is many mental health patients refuse to take any medication. You can't throw money at a problem and expect it to end. We need to help mentally ill patients and throwing money at them isn't going to help them or anyone else, it will make them targets and that will hurt them. Unless you have a comprehensive plan on how to take care of these people, you are wasting time, money, and creating a risk for the mentally ill person.

Yet, right wingers have no problem simply throwing money at endless wars they could not win to begin with. Go figure.

I don't believe our military belong in other countries and we need to get out of the wars we are in, I still have no idea what one has to do with the others other than you are losing the argument and need to switch the topic because you are getting your ass kicked.

You no idea on how to address the homeless or the mentally ill. Your solution is to just throw money at the problem, which is a really stupid solution as mentioned to you by several posters. Maybe you should sit back and rethink your idea because with each post, you are sounding dumber and dumber.

 

[hadit]

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.

Not when I laid out precisely why they don't apply. You didn't address that, which means you chose to ignore what I said and just keep reiterating the same stupidity over and over.

You appealed to ignorance of why they don't apply. Equal protection of the law must apply in any conflict of laws.

And you have provided no logical reason why they do apply when they very clearly lay out the necessary qualifications you have to meet in order to collect. Post the actual text of the law that you think says it applies to someone who has never held a job and never intends to.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It sounds like you seriously believe we could jack the MW like that with no consequences.

Sure, the consequences are economically manageable just like these ones are:

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

And that's when the wheels fell off your tricycle. Once you admit that, you reveal such a vast ignorance of basic economics that there's no hope in ever teaching you anything. We'll just watch you and laugh.

Says the guy who is too lazy to come up with valid arguments. Just plain political hypocrites regarding hard worK?

 

[danielpalos]

No..not a cost savings at all -------------------druggies chose their own problems
Throwing money at medical help provides them free housing, free medical to get drugs, free food------and only improves their living standards at the cost of taxpayers.

Yes, it is a cost savings since we would not need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

To summarize, you want to be paid $15/hour to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot. Is that about the size of it?

Why do you have a problem with if you can make more than that minimum wage? Just quit and go on unemployment. Don't whine.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

right wing moderators have banned me several times for clarification.

That is because you broke the rules and they are allowed to ban people that don't follow the rules, you just keep playing stupid, which is fine, it just doesn't get you anywhere. You still pushing your FAKE NEWS!!! Still no links? Still nothing but FAKE NEWS!!!

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

Hi.

I've something that's been floating around in my brain for a while.

The Nonprofit Conglomerate
So given the risk in any business startup a profit margin in the 15% range is expected. But, what if that 15% were poured into income and benefits for the employees instead?
This would be an interlocking corporation wherein individual companies within the corporation provide goods and services to one another
For example a payroll management company, in addition to its outside customers, would provide payroll services to member companies at steep discounts.
The company would fund the following for its employees:
3 month layoff protection
100% funded healthcare (using facilities that are members)
Heavily discounted childcare
Training
Education
Once these items are fully funded 100% of profits go toward employee salaries.

With no "owners" there's no income taxes and no owner income so the rest can go to the employees.

Seems like a good idea that could be beneficial, ceteris paribus. The issue however is that capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment regardless. We need a market friendly solution that is less expensive than our current, endless War on Poverty.

Can't solve every problem but the plan allows for a business within the group to keep and pay every employee for 90 days in a situation with zero revenues.
Beyond the 90 days if a business is forced to dissolve every effort is made to absorb employees into other businesses within the group.

It doesn't fix all of unemployment as there are some who are simply unemployable and not every business will be part of the group.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't seem to understand mental health do you? Drugs are usually self medication for those with mental health issues, the other side is many mental health patients refuse to take any medication. You can't throw money at a problem and expect it to end. We need to help mentally ill patients and throwing money at them isn't going to help them or anyone else, it will make them targets and that will hurt them. Unless you have a comprehensive plan on how to take care of these people, you are wasting time, money, and creating a risk for the mentally ill person.

Yet, right wingers have no problem simply throwing money at endless wars they could not win to begin with. Go figure.

I don't believe our military belong in other countries and we need to get out of the wars we are in, I still have no idea what one has to do with the others other than you are losing the argument and need to switch the topic because you are getting your ass kicked.

You no idea on how to address the homeless or the mentally ill. Your solution is to just throw money at the problem, which is a really stupid solution as mentioned to you by several posters. Maybe you should sit back and rethink your idea because with each post, you are sounding dumber and dumber.

cost and taxes. right wingers only complain about the Poor. hypocrites.

 

[hadit]

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.

It sounds like you seriously believe we could jack the MW like that with no consequences.

Sure, the consequences are economically manageable just like these ones are:

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

And that's when the wheels fell off your tricycle. Once you admit that, you reveal such a vast ignorance of basic economics that there's no hope in ever teaching you anything. We'll just watch you and laugh.

Says the guy who is too lazy to come up with valid arguments. Just plain political hypocrites regarding hard worK?

Make yourself sound relevant and educated about economics instead of redefining words to mean something they never have and never will. Actually learn something for a change.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Not when I laid out precisely why they don't apply. You didn't address that, which means you chose to ignore what I said and just keep reiterating the same stupidity over and over.

You appealed to ignorance of why they don't apply. Equal protection of the law must apply in any conflict of laws.

And you have provided no logical reason why they do apply when they very clearly lay out the necessary qualifications you have to meet in order to collect. Post the actual text of the law that you think says it applies to someone who has never held a job and never intends to.

I would resort to an ad hominem, but I feel the need to be better and more hard working than right wingers. The whole point is that You have provided no logical reason and have no legal reason to deny or disparage equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

 

[hadit]

No..not a cost savings at all -------------------druggies chose their own problems
Throwing money at medical help provides them free housing, free medical to get drugs, free food------and only improves their living standards at the cost of taxpayers.

Yes, it is a cost savings since we would not need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

To summarize, you want to be paid $15/hour to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot. Is that about the size of it?

Why do you have a problem with if you can make more than that minimum wage? Just quit and go on unemployment. Don't whine.

The problem is you getting paid and doing nothing productive for the society that's paying you. And your attitude right there is why we don't do it, because many would be just like you and refuse to work a productive job.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Hi.

I've something that's been floating around in my brain for a while.

The Nonprofit Conglomerate
So given the risk in any business startup a profit margin in the 15% range is expected. But, what if that 15% were poured into income and benefits for the employees instead?
This would be an interlocking corporation wherein individual companies within the corporation provide goods and services to one another
For example a payroll management company, in addition to its outside customers, would provide payroll services to member companies at steep discounts.
The company would fund the following for its employees:
3 month layoff protection
100% funded healthcare (using facilities that are members)
Heavily discounted childcare
Training
Education
Once these items are fully funded 100% of profits go toward employee salaries.

With no "owners" there's no income taxes and no owner income so the rest can go to the employees.

Seems like a good idea that could be beneficial, ceteris paribus. The issue however is that capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment regardless. We need a market friendly solution that is less expensive than our current, endless War on Poverty.

Can't solve every problem but the plan allows for a business within the group to keep and pay every employee for 90 days in a situation with zero revenues.
Beyond the 90 days if a business is forced to dissolve every effort is made to absorb employees into other businesses within the group.

It doesn't fix all of unemployment as there are some who are simply unemployable and not every business will be part of the group.

How does that solve simple poverty in our Republic?

 

[hadit]

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.

Not when I laid out precisely why they don't apply. You didn't address that, which means you chose to ignore what I said and just keep reiterating the same stupidity over and over.

You appealed to ignorance of why they don't apply. Equal protection of the law must apply in any conflict of laws.

And you have provided no logical reason why they do apply when they very clearly lay out the necessary qualifications you have to meet in order to collect. Post the actual text of the law that you think says it applies to someone who has never held a job and never intends to.

I would resort to an ad hominem, but I feel the need to be better and more hard working than right wingers. The whole point is that You have provided no logical reason and have no legal reason to deny or disparage equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

No one is doing that, that it is the point. You're simply ignoring everything people show you and repeating that you don't see any reasons. You're hopeless, because I've educated you countless times on this and you're still stuck on stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

No..not a cost savings at all -------------------druggies chose their own problems
Throwing money at medical help provides them free housing, free medical to get drugs, free food------and only improves their living standards at the cost of taxpayers.

Yes, it is a cost savings since we would not need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

To summarize, you want to be paid $15/hour to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot. Is that about the size of it?

Why do you have a problem with if you can make more than that minimum wage? Just quit and go on unemployment. Don't whine.

The problem is you getting paid and doing nothing productive for the society that's paying you. And your attitude right there is why we don't do it, because many would be just like you and refuse to work a productive job.

Where is the law that says anyone has to be employed in an at-will employment State? Black codes prove you wrong. It was a lack of equal protection of the laws that causes and has caused poverty in our republic.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Not when I laid out precisely why they don't apply. You didn't address that, which means you chose to ignore what I said and just keep reiterating the same stupidity over and over.

You appealed to ignorance of why they don't apply. Equal protection of the law must apply in any conflict of laws.

And you have provided no logical reason why they do apply when they very clearly lay out the necessary qualifications you have to meet in order to collect. Post the actual text of the law that you think says it applies to someone who has never held a job and never intends to.

I would resort to an ad hominem, but I feel the need to be better and more hard working than right wingers. The whole point is that You have provided no logical reason and have no legal reason to deny or disparage equal protection of the laws in any at-will employment State.

No one is doing that, that it is the point. You're simply ignoring everything people show you and repeating that you don't see any reasons. You're hopeless, because I've educated you countless times on this and you're still stuck on stupid.

Your problem is you need more than ad hominems. Too lazy, "hard working" hypocrite?