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

[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.

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.

As has been explained to you many times, you don't have to be employed. You also don't have to get paid if you're not. See how that works, or are you still stuck on stupid?

 

[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.

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

And when you resort to that, you've completely lost the argument. Face it, you've exposed a startling lack of knowledge about economics, and worse, refuse to learn anything. You think unemployment compensation means you should be able to collect $15/hr because you won't take an available job, and that's absolutely ludicrous. You won't post the text of any law for discussion because you know it would simply expose the vacuity of your position. Give it up already, go away for a few weeks like you usually do and pop up again hoping we won't be here to smack down your nonsense again.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

I wouldn't know, I am not about generalizations and that seems to be the only thing you are about, shallow but given your uneducated ideas, it is expected.

The highest homeless populations are in Seattle, Portland, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, what have any of those Democratic politicians done in their own states to relieve the problem? Seems the Democrats in those cities are just making it easier to set up camps to take care of them because they are out of ideas.

 

[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.

As has been explained to you many times, you don't have to be employed. You also don't have to get paid if you're not. See how that works, or are you still stuck on stupid?

Not from a job. Silly right winger. Compensation for simply being unemployed is the simple solution that can win our endless war on poverty.

 

[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?

And when you resort to that, you've completely lost the argument. Face it, you've exposed a startling lack of knowledge about economics, and worse, refuse to learn anything. You think unemployment compensation means you should be able to collect $15/hr because you won't take an available job, and that's absolutely ludicrous. You won't post the text of any law for discussion because you know it would simply expose the vacuity of your position. Give it up already, go away for a few weeks like you usually do and pop up again hoping we won't be here to smack down your nonsense again.

Not at all. It means we would not need statutory minimum wages and still have an Institutional upward pressure on wages; intellectually lazy right winger.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

I wouldn't know, I am not about generalizations and that seems to be the only thing you are about, shallow but given your uneducated ideas, it is expected.

The highest homeless populations are in Seattle, Portland, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, what have any of those Democratic politicians done in their own states to relieve the problem? Seems the Democrats in those cities are just making it easier to set up camps to take care of them because they are out of ideas.

All homeless have mental problems is not a generalization?

 

[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.

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

Where did I complain? Again, you and your lies! FAKE NEWS!!! It is all you have. What is poor is your poor attempts justify your laziness.

 

[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.

Where did I complain? Again, you and your lies! FAKE NEWS!!! It is all you have. What is poor is your poor attempts justify your laziness.

When have not complained about taxes or the Poor?

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

I wouldn't know, I am not about generalizations and that seems to be the only thing you are about, shallow but given your uneducated ideas, it is expected.

The highest homeless populations are in Seattle, Portland, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, what have any of those Democratic politicians done in their own states to relieve the problem? Seems the Democrats in those cities are just making it easier to set up camps to take care of them because they are out of ideas.

All homeless have mental problems is not a generalization?

If your reading comprehension is that poor, it will do no good to explain what I was referring to. You are a clueless person.

 

[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.

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

Where did I complain? Again, you and your lies! FAKE NEWS!!! It is all you have. What is poor is your poor attempts justify your laziness.

When have not complained about taxes or the Poor?

You want to try again in trying make a coherent sentence?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

View attachment 448793
All those people are outliers? How many would be on the street if they could simply,easily, and conveniently obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, so landlords could love them instead of complain about them.

The mentally ill would not care.

Is it that hard for you to grasp the concept of mental illness?

I agree to disagree. The concept of illness, mental or otherwise could and should be treated by the appropriate practitioners.

Great platitude. But offering unemployment compensation will not fix that.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

He did not appeal to any such thing. I wanted proof of your claim. You refused to provide it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

View attachment 448793
All those people are outliers? How many would be on the street if they could simply,easily, and conveniently obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, so landlords could love them instead of complain about them.

The mentally ill would not care.

Is it that hard for you to grasp the concept of mental illness?

I agree to disagree. The concept of illness, mental or otherwise could and should be treated by the appropriate practitioners.

Great platitude. But offering unemployment compensation will not fix that.

Why not if they have an income under our form of Capitalism?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No you have not.

 

[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.

He did not appeal to any such thing. I wanted proof of your claim. You refused to provide it.

you are appealing to ignorance of a very simple concept. y'all have nothing but diversion and ad hominems not any valid rebuttals.

 

[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.

No you have not.

Yes, I have.

 

[WinterBorn]

This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The equality is already there. Regardless of who terminates the relationship, the employer loses your labor and you lose your paycheck.

 

[danielpalos]

This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The equality is already there. Regardless of who terminates the relationship, the employer loses your labor and you lose your paycheck.

It is about unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It is a simple concept. Anyone, and I really do mean anyone should be able to grasp it.

 

[WinterBorn]

No major changes at all, merely equal protection of the laws.
[/QUOTE]

No major changes? LMAO!! No, just changing the entire way UC is funded, what it takes to qualify, how IDs are issued, how benefits are handled, and how long they last. Other than that....

 

[WinterBorn]

This entire thread is about you wanting Unemployment Compensation just for being unemployed. So, yes, it IS your argument. UC is temporary help for people who lost their job through no fault of their own. You want EC whether they quit, got fired for cause or just don't want to work.

Story teller. This entire thread is about equality and equal protection of the laws to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The equality is already there. Regardless of who terminates the relationship, the employer loses your labor and you lose your paycheck.

It is about unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It is a simple concept. Anyone, and I really do mean anyone should be able to grasp it.

There is no reason to pay someone for refusing to work. The UC was created and designed as temporary help, not a long term career. If you want to live off the tax payers, you draw welfare.