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

[danielpalos]

Poverty can be caused by many reasons. It is up to the individual to do what is needed to get out of it. Bad choices can lead to poverty. There are many mechanisms provided by the State and Federal Governments to help them get out. . However, you can not make people take advantage of them. High School Dropouts, mental illness, personalty disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction, and many more human conditions get in the way.. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy. Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner means more capital circulating in our economy and fewer problems. Who would not benefit by that form of full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy. And, people with an income would be more market friendly and better able to afford housing to stay off the street. They would benefit, landlords would benefit, and the general public would benefit by not having a homeless problem in their neighborhood.

Homelessness is on a downward trend.

Homelessness statistics in the US for 2021 | Policy Advice

Despite the efforts to provide adequate housing, homelessness statistics reveal that they haven’t been enough. Look here to learn more.

policyadvice.net

• 39.8% of homeless persons are African-Americans.
• 61% of homeless persons are men and boys.
• 20% of homeless persons are kids.
• 42% of street children identify as LGBT.
• New York City has one-fifth of all US sheltered homeless.
• The homeless problem is on a downward trend.
• Permanent housing interventions have grown by 450% in 5 years.

The point is, we have a first world economy or should have, and we should have no homeless problem. There is a market friendly solution that merely requires enough morals to faithfully execute our own laws.

There will always be some homeless people.

no matter what the economy is like.

I agree to disagree. Simply camping out for fun is not the same as being homeless due to an inefficiency in public policies that enables it.

Many homeless people are mentally ill and will not ever submit to forced housing

Who said anything about forced housing with persons who have an income. Most would Want to get off the street on their own simply by having an income. And, those with mental health issues would be able to look into rehab with their income. Seems more like a form of free market capitalism than what we have now under our current regime.

you think the mentally ill homeless have incomes?

Daniel, we have been through this before. Here are some reasons your plan won't work.

1) Giving $2,600.00 to addicts would hasten their death by funding their addiction.
2) Giving $2,600.00 to homeless people with metal illness would make them targets for criminals.
3) Where would the gov't send the checks?
4) How many homeless people have a valid ID? No address = no state ID
5) Where would they keep their money? No address or ID = no bank account

There are more issues. But these show how ridiculous your plan is.

That is your story, story teller. Of course it won't work since you have nothing but a straw man who can't talk to the Wizard (of Oz).

Why are they homeless and on the street when we are spending billions on a generational basis for a War on Poverty? Besides, if they were being given that much money, they could participate in the market for mental healthcare in a friendly manner. And, free id to vote, could help them get an id and even make arrangements with EDD to pick up their checks or even a bank to receive direct deposit or even the (mental) health institution to help pay for their health care and rehabilitation. Those are simple problems and not insurmountable at all.

 

[BlackSand]

I would rather we live in a free country absent fascist authoritarians supported by frightened sheep ...

.

Translation: Pandemic? What pandemic?

It's okay ... You'll make or you won't ... The government is doing the best it can to save you from yourself.
Screw the social distancing ... You just need a hug ...

.

 

[danielpalos]

My point is, you can't solve ALL poverty -- some is being too impaired or too stupid, and some is a life-style choice which if they aren't stealing or otherwise being a public nuisance, is no one else's business.

My point is we need more cost effective solutions instead of endless wars.

 

[danielpalos]

No. The "for cause" criteria simply means you are responsible for your own life.

No, the for Cause criteria is repugnant to the concept of employment at the will of either party. Being responsible for your own life still happens with unemployment compensation in our market based economy.

 

[danielpalos]

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

Even worse, the dipstick wants to receive unending unemployment even if he never had a job.

There is no requirement to be a wage-slave in any at-will employment State. Only right wingers want to abolish even statutory minimum wages just like in the good old days.

 

[danielpalos]

You expect the employer to continue to pay you, even though you quit the job or were fired for violating stated ruled. And you want to call that equality?

Even worse, the dipstick wants to receive unending unemployment even if he never had a job.

He wants welfare, except welfare has a means test. You have to prove you cannot survive without aid. He obviously can.

He wants employers to be forced to pay him, even if he quits or is fired for cause.

Not welfare at all; merely a simple and market friendly solution to Capitalism's not socialism's Natural rate of unemployment.

 

[Circe]

My point is we need more cost effective solutions instead of endless wars.

Solutions to what, to people WANTING to live outside governmental control? Most people want to be free. Homeless people may just want to be free more than other people.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation has already demonstrated a multiplier of 2 and is much more cost effective than means tested welfare. We could abolish our useless War on Poverty by having UC pick up the slack in a more market friendly manner.

It is one solution for this economic phenomena:

Its all whitey's fault that higher crime areas chase business such as grocery stores away even when the government hands out food stamps like candy meaning all the would be customers would have to do get all those HEALTHY FOODS in their neighbors is well behave like normal people?

It is right winger's fault for having no free market Capitalism solutions only their socialism on a national and international basis.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is we should have no homeless problem in our first world economy.

Both the people I described WANT to be homeless. What, are you going to imprison them?

For example, people with drug addictions or mental illness would be able to afford rehabilitation to help them be more productive in our economy.

Good luck with rehabbing chronic schizophrenics. Or alcoholics. That won't happen.
And they don't WANT to "be more productive in our economy." They don't want to be slaves to capitalism -- or civilization. They want to live in a barrel, like Diogenes the philosopher. As long as they don't urinate on people, as Diogenes did at dinner parties, maybe it's not a problem.

Except in San Francisco, it is a problem there.

Seems more like circular reasoning. Why would anyone who wants to be Poor engage in crime. Our alleged War on Crime is merely socialism on a national basis which right wingers have no problem with, but do have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation our at-will employment States.

 

[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.

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO.. Don't we owe our fellow citizens that much? What are we afraid of?

Anyone who wants a job should have one, IMO..

And those who don't should still get paid.....ask Daniel.

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our market economy. It is free market capitalism at its finest; unlike your right wing, alleged War on Crime which is nothing but socialism on a national basis.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

TARP transferred wealth to the rich? How?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. -- Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia

Yet, solving simple poverty by actually solving for an economic phenomena for the Poor is too much to ask?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase toxic assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. --

They changed it. They didn't buy toxic assets, they bought preferred stock.
Made billions. It was in all the papers.

Yet, solving simple poverty by actually solving for an economic phenomena for the Poor is too much to ask?

Yes, incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work is a terrible idea.

A bailout for the Rich but not for the Poor; I get it, Right Wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

My point is we need more cost effective solutions instead of endless wars.

Solutions to what, to people WANTING to live outside governmental control? Most people want to be free. Homeless people may just want to be free more than other people.

Why complain about crime, drugs, and terror? Don't you hate Government control?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no requirement to be a wage-slave in any at-will employment State.

Of course not. Just don't expect to be paid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A bailout for the Rich but not for the Poor;

A short term loan, repaid at a profit, that saved the banking system. Just awful! DURR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our market economy.

Link?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no requirement to be a wage-slave in any at-will employment State.

Of course not. Just don't expect to be paid.

I don't expect any employer to pay me; equal protection of the laws, however is a State responsibility.

 

[danielpalos]

A bailout for the Rich but not for the Poor;

A short term loan, repaid at a profit, that saved the banking system. Just awful! DURR

So, a positive multiplier by the Poor creating more in demand and generating more tax revenue is Bad simply because it would the Poor doing it?

 

[hadit]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed in our market economy.

Link?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.