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

[danielpalos]

It IS welfare, that's the bottom line, because you want to support a bunch of people who COULD work but choose not to. That's the bottom line, it's not UC, which supports people temporarily laid off from their job.

It is not welfare since welfare is means tested and has nothing to do with whether or not someone is employed or not.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. Anything that denies or disparages employment at-will is not Constitutional and should be challenged.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

 

[hadit]

It IS welfare, that's the bottom line, because you want to support a bunch of people who COULD work but choose not to. That's the bottom line, it's not UC, which supports people temporarily laid off from their job.

It is not welfare since welfare is means tested and has nothing to do with whether or not someone is employed or not.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. Anything that denies or disparages employment at-will is not Constitutional and should be challenged.

But it will be means tested, as you yourself was forced to admit. You can't collect if you're already getting a paycheck, or are a minor, just for two examples. It's welfare because it's open to everybody whether they ever worked a job or never intend to. It's welfare. UC is an insurance program. What you want is welfare.

 

[hadit]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

 

[danielpalos]

It IS welfare, that's the bottom line, because you want to support a bunch of people who COULD work but choose not to. That's the bottom line, it's not UC, which supports people temporarily laid off from their job.

It is not welfare since welfare is means tested and has nothing to do with whether or not someone is employed or not.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. Anything that denies or disparages employment at-will is not Constitutional and should be challenged.

But it will be means tested, as you yourself was forced to admit. You can't collect if you're already getting a paycheck, or are a minor, just for two examples. It's welfare because it's open to everybody whether they ever worked a job or never intend to. It's welfare. UC is an insurance program. What you want is welfare.

Not at all. It is just you trying to quibble. Unequal protection of the law is the problem now. Solving simple poverty by solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is not welfare which doesn't care about economic phenomena as long as the person qualifies due to means tested criteria.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

 

[hadit]

It IS welfare, that's the bottom line, because you want to support a bunch of people who COULD work but choose not to. That's the bottom line, it's not UC, which supports people temporarily laid off from their job.

It is not welfare since welfare is means tested and has nothing to do with whether or not someone is employed or not.

There is no requirement to work in an at-will employment State. Anything that denies or disparages employment at-will is not Constitutional and should be challenged.

But it will be means tested, as you yourself was forced to admit. You can't collect if you're already getting a paycheck, or are a minor, just for two examples. It's welfare because it's open to everybody whether they ever worked a job or never intend to. It's welfare. UC is an insurance program. What you want is welfare.

Not at all. It is just you trying to quibble. Unequal protection of the law is the problem now. Solving simple poverty by solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is not welfare which doesn't care about economic phenomena as long as the person qualifies due to means tested criteria.

You're spouting meaningless word salad again. Words mean things and you keep trying to change what they mean. You're not solving for "simple poverty" because what you want to do won't solve it. You're pretending that you're not talking about welfare, but let's look at that. You want to:

1. Pay people in dollars what they now can get from welfare, and you don't specify that you want to get rid of welfare. That's doubling welfare spending.
2. Pay people this money whether they quit a job, got laid off, never had a job, or never intend to have a job. This on top of welfare. Since you claim that current welfare recipients get $14/hr and you want to match that, we're talking about every adult in the country could receive $28/hr for doing nothing. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
3. CHANGE UC from a self-supporting program that's funded by specific taxes on employers and that has relatively few recipients compared to funders into a massive program fed by a general tax on the entire population and has every person now receiving welfare on it, plus those legitimately laid off. IOW, you've created a new welfare program that's bigger than any of the others we've created.

There is no unequal protection of the law. If there was, it would have been ruled so by a court challenge a long time ago. That's only in your head and no one agrees with you. And again, I've given you the situations to prove that whether you can get UC or not has no bearing on whether it's legal for you to quit your job or not. In fact, you steadfastly refuse to even answer the situations. I'll ask again, just to further illustrate how vacuous you are.

1. You quit a job. You can collect UC. Are you allowed to quit your job? Yes.
2. You quit a job. You cannot collect UC. Are you allowed to quit your job? Yes.

Can you in any way show how not being able to collect UC makes it illegal to quit your job? If (and when) you can't, you would, if you had any integrity, stop carrying on about unequal protection of the law.

What you want to do is means tested welfare an will have no more impact on poverty than existing welfare programs do. I don't expect you to honestly deal with the situations I gave you. I don't think you're capable of doing so.

 

[hadit]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

There was strong opposition to slavery on moral grounds. We agreed that owning other people was something we abhorred and made it illegal. Heck, we fought a war over it. There is no strong support behind the idea that UC should be given to those who refuse to work when they can. There is only you and maybe a handful of potheads who can't be bothered to do more than move from the floor to the couch to start the day's lighting up. IOW, you're wrong because you're wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

You're spouting meaningless word salad again. Words mean things and you keep trying to change what they mean. You're not solving for "simple poverty" because what you want to do won't solve it.

Why do you believe unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed (at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour) won't solve simple poverty? Will we still have have a homeless problem in San Francisco, for example? Will landlords or local small businesses be worse off?

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

There was strong opposition to slavery on moral grounds. We agreed that owning other people was something we abhorred and made it illegal. Heck, we fought a war over it. There is no strong support behind the idea that UC should be given to those who refuse to work when they can. There is only you and maybe a handful of potheads who can't be bothered to do more than move from the floor to the couch to start the day's lighting up. IOW, you're wrong because you're wrong.

Nice story, but a non sequitur. I am saying actually solving for simply poverty is more rational that merely paying for an endless war on poverty that is not meant to actually solve simple poverty.

 

[hadit]

You're spouting meaningless word salad again. Words mean things and you keep trying to change what they mean. You're not solving for "simple poverty" because what you want to do won't solve it.

Why do you believe unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed (at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour) won't solve simple poverty? Will we still have have a homeless problem in San Francisco, for example? Will landlords or local small businesses be worse off?

I've already told you why what you want is unworkable. We'd end up with a permanent class of people we'd be paying $28/hr (the new $14/hr welfare benefit you want on top of the $14/hr in benefits they already get) to do nothing. Yes, we'd still have a homeless problem in SF, because how many of those homeless are actually trying to find homes right now? And yes, landlord and local small businesses will be worse off because they will have to raise prices and lay people off to pay for the massive new taxes you'd impose on them. Housing costs would rise again to the point where $28/hr won't be enough to afford a place and we're right back where we started. Then you'll be demanding $50/hr and pretending you didn't already get what you said would solve poverty. In fact, you'll be using the exact same phrases and lack of logic to claim you can solve poverty if we would just pay everybody $50/hr.

 

[hadit]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

There was strong opposition to slavery on moral grounds. We agreed that owning other people was something we abhorred and made it illegal. Heck, we fought a war over it. There is no strong support behind the idea that UC should be given to those who refuse to work when they can. There is only you and maybe a handful of potheads who can't be bothered to do more than move from the floor to the couch to start the day's lighting up. IOW, you're wrong because you're wrong.

Nice story, but a non sequitur. I am saying actually solving for simply poverty is more rational that merely paying for an endless war on poverty that is not meant to actually solve simple poverty.

You mentioned slavery as if it was an answer to something in an attempt to pretend true legal opinions on the law don't matter as much as your made up one does. I showed you how it didn't apply, so now you want to toss it aside. And I'm saying that you're NOT "solving for simply poverty" by creating a massive new welfare program on top of all the others we already have.

 

[danielpalos]

You're spouting meaningless word salad again. Words mean things and you keep trying to change what they mean. You're not solving for "simple poverty" because what you want to do won't solve it.

Why do you believe unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed (at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour) won't solve simple poverty? Will we still have have a homeless problem in San Francisco, for example? Will landlords or local small businesses be worse off?

I've already told you why what you want is unworkable. We'd end up with a permanent class of people we'd be paying $28/hr (the new $14/hr welfare benefit you want on top of the $14/hr in benefits they already get) to do nothing. Yes, we'd still have a homeless problem in SF, because how many of those homeless are actually trying to find homes right now? And yes, landlord and local small businesses will be worse off because they will have to raise prices and lay people off to pay for the massive new taxes you'd impose on them. Housing costs would rise again to the point where $28/hr won't be enough to afford a place and we're right back where we started. Then you'll be demanding $50/hr and pretending you didn't already get what you said would solve poverty. In fact, you'll be using the exact same phrases and lack of logic to claim you can solve poverty if we would just pay everybody $50/hr.

You are becoming a story teller. Do you not believe in Capitalism where all that may be required is Capital? Admit it, all right wingers have fallacy and socialism on a national basis. Go ahead and abolish your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to save money to help the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

There was strong opposition to slavery on moral grounds. We agreed that owning other people was something we abhorred and made it illegal. Heck, we fought a war over it. There is no strong support behind the idea that UC should be given to those who refuse to work when they can. There is only you and maybe a handful of potheads who can't be bothered to do more than move from the floor to the couch to start the day's lighting up. IOW, you're wrong because you're wrong.

Nice story, but a non sequitur. I am saying actually solving for simply poverty is more rational that merely paying for an endless war on poverty that is not meant to actually solve simple poverty.

You mentioned slavery as if it was an answer to something in an attempt to pretend true legal opinions on the law don't matter as much as your made up one does. I showed you how it didn't apply, so now you want to toss it aside. And I'm saying that you're NOT "solving for simply poverty" by creating a massive new welfare program on top of all the others we already have.

You appeal to ignorance of the law. Come up with valid arguments not merely fallacy and making up right wing fantast.

 

[hadit]

You're spouting meaningless word salad again. Words mean things and you keep trying to change what they mean. You're not solving for "simple poverty" because what you want to do won't solve it.

Why do you believe unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed (at the hypothetical equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour) won't solve simple poverty? Will we still have have a homeless problem in San Francisco, for example? Will landlords or local small businesses be worse off?

I've already told you why what you want is unworkable. We'd end up with a permanent class of people we'd be paying $28/hr (the new $14/hr welfare benefit you want on top of the $14/hr in benefits they already get) to do nothing. Yes, we'd still have a homeless problem in SF, because how many of those homeless are actually trying to find homes right now? And yes, landlord and local small businesses will be worse off because they will have to raise prices and lay people off to pay for the massive new taxes you'd impose on them. Housing costs would rise again to the point where $28/hr won't be enough to afford a place and we're right back where we started. Then you'll be demanding $50/hr and pretending you didn't already get what you said would solve poverty. In fact, you'll be using the exact same phrases and lack of logic to claim you can solve poverty if we would just pay everybody $50/hr.

You are becoming a story teller. Do you not believe in Capitalism where all that may be required is Capital? Admit it, all right wingers have fallacy and socialism on a national basis. Go ahead and abolish your useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to save money to help the Poor.

If you're not even willing to acknowledge that you want to add this new benefit on top of all the existing welfare benefits, resulting in giving everyone $28/hr, you're just flailing. If you think you can arbitrarily increase labor costs across the board with no consequences, you don't understand economics. If you think most people would voluntarily give up $28/hr of welfare benefits to take a job at $15/hr, you don't understand human nature. If you think you can remove law enforcement without causing chaos and disruption, you don't understand the world we live in. If you think the rest of the world will sit idly by if we no longer care about a small handful of people being able to take out large targets, you don't understand much of anything.

We have reached that point, Daniel. You have exhausted your arguments and you are now reduced to merely mumbling the same broken phrases over and over again, refusing to acknowledge any of the facts and logic presented to you, insisting that you are right despite being shown repeatedly where you are wrong and how. You are basically target practice.

 

[hadit]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

There was strong opposition to slavery on moral grounds. We agreed that owning other people was something we abhorred and made it illegal. Heck, we fought a war over it. There is no strong support behind the idea that UC should be given to those who refuse to work when they can. There is only you and maybe a handful of potheads who can't be bothered to do more than move from the floor to the couch to start the day's lighting up. IOW, you're wrong because you're wrong.

Nice story, but a non sequitur. I am saying actually solving for simply poverty is more rational that merely paying for an endless war on poverty that is not meant to actually solve simple poverty.

You mentioned slavery as if it was an answer to something in an attempt to pretend true legal opinions on the law don't matter as much as your made up one does. I showed you how it didn't apply, so now you want to toss it aside. And I'm saying that you're NOT "solving for simply poverty" by creating a massive new welfare program on top of all the others we already have.

You appeal to ignorance of the law. Come up with valid arguments not merely fallacy and making up right wing fantast.

Dude, you've been destroyed. Everything you claim has been shown to be a huge fallacy from the beginning. You lost, big time.

 

[danielpalos]

If you're not even willing to acknowledge that you want to add this new benefit on top of all the existing welfare benefits, resulting in giving everyone $28/hr, you're just flailing.

That is just you assuming the subsequent. Raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour means people will need less social services. And, that higher paid labor creates more in demand and generate more in tax revenue under our progressive tax regime to help cover the costs. Even the dollar menu won't double, which means greater purchasing for labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know any attorneys who disagree with my legal position either.

You don't know any attorneys. Ask a few if UC qualifications are unequal protection under the law and are a legal barrier to you quitting your job. Do some research on the subject beyond quoting again and again your favorite sentences that don't prove anything.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law regarding employment at the will of either party.

Did you ask any labor law attorneys what they think? No. Can you quit your job even if you can't collect UC? Yup, people do it all the time, proving you wrong, again.

So what. At one time slavery was legal in some States and even a supreme Court came up with the Dred Scott decision. Simply being on the right wing doesn't mean you are Right.

There was strong opposition to slavery on moral grounds. We agreed that owning other people was something we abhorred and made it illegal. Heck, we fought a war over it. There is no strong support behind the idea that UC should be given to those who refuse to work when they can. There is only you and maybe a handful of potheads who can't be bothered to do more than move from the floor to the couch to start the day's lighting up. IOW, you're wrong because you're wrong.

Nice story, but a non sequitur. I am saying actually solving for simply poverty is more rational that merely paying for an endless war on poverty that is not meant to actually solve simple poverty.

You mentioned slavery as if it was an answer to something in an attempt to pretend true legal opinions on the law don't matter as much as your made up one does. I showed you how it didn't apply, so now you want to toss it aside. And I'm saying that you're NOT "solving for simply poverty" by creating a massive new welfare program on top of all the others we already have.

You appeal to ignorance of the law. Come up with valid arguments not merely fallacy and making up right wing fantast.

Dude, you've been destroyed. Everything you claim has been shown to be a huge fallacy from the beginning. You lost, big time.

You need valid arguments not merely assuming your subsequent right wing fantasy.