What would a socialist America look like?

[danielpalos]

stop being frivolous. how do welfare recipients get their benefits?

Frivolous? Don't be daft and try to make light of the questions.

How do welfare recipients get their benefits? In the mail. They are mailed to the recipient's home address.

Now, I answered your question. Answer mine? Or admit that you are wrong.

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

They merely need an income if they are only unemployed. That falls under the department of employment development.

 

[WinterBorn]

Frivolous? Don't be daft and try to make light of the questions.

How do welfare recipients get their benefits? In the mail. They are mailed to the recipient's home address.

Now, I answered your question. Answer mine? Or admit that you are wrong.

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

 

[WinterBorn]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

They merely need an income if they are only unemployed. That falls under the department of employment development.

Once again, how will you provide the income? Mail it to the 9th Street Overpass?

You know my questions are valid and that you are wrong. But you are too obstinate to admit it because you want an income for sitting in your parent's basement.

 

[danielpalos]

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

They merely need an income if they are only unemployed. That falls under the department of employment development.

Once again, how will you provide the income? Mail it to the 9th Street Overpass?

You know my questions are valid and that you are wrong. But you are too obstinate to admit it because you want an income for sitting in your parent's basement.

A simple problem for EDD to handle.

 

[Papageorgio]

stop being frivolous. how do welfare recipients get their benefits?

Frivolous? Don't be daft and try to make light of the questions.

How do welfare recipients get their benefits? In the mail. They are mailed to the recipient's home address.

Now, I answered your question. Answer mine? Or admit that you are wrong.

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

 

[danielpalos]

Frivolous? Don't be daft and try to make light of the questions.

How do welfare recipients get their benefits? In the mail. They are mailed to the recipient's home address.

Now, I answered your question. Answer mine? Or admit that you are wrong.

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

 

[initforme]

Socialism has never and will never gain a foothold in america. I frankly hear it used as rhetoric all the time. This is a capitalistic country that stands for the dollar...first and foremost. It will always be this way. In capitalism there must be some poor people so govt assistance will always exist as well so those of you who cry and whine and tantrum about it will have to let it go. I dpdagree it needs to go to legal citizens yes. But there will always be poor in a capitalist society. This is just a fact. Big corporations run the show. Always have always will. And they dont exactly really in the end care about their average Joe workers. Fact. Those who cry about this fact might as well get over it too. Its all about and only about making the dollar which is Numéro uno in america.

 

[Papageorgio]

Winterborn’s questions are still not answered and we all Daniel has nothing but cliches for a cause and no cure.

Throwing money at the homeless has never helped, it creates more problems for them.

Why is the cure always money and not real help?

 

[DOTR]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Will is a sad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is a progressive disease and I fear he will end up babbling in a rubber room.

 

[Papageorgio]

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

 

[danielpalos]

Winterborn’s questions are still not answered and we all Daniel has nothing but cliches for a cause and no cure.

Throwing money at the homeless has never helped, it creates more problems for them.

Why is the cure always money and not real help?

A simple problem for EDD to handle.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism has never and will never gain a foothold in america. I frankly hear it used as rhetoric all the time. This is a capitalistic country that stands for the dollar...first and foremost. It will always be this way. In capitalism there must be some poor people so govt assistance will always exist as well so those of you who cry and whine and tantrum about it will have to let it go. I dpdagree it needs to go to legal citizens yes. But there will always be poor in a capitalist society. This is just a fact. Big corporations run the show. Always have always will. And they dont exactly really in the end care about their average Joe workers. Fact. Those who cry about this fact might as well get over it too. Its all about and only about making the dollar which is Numéro uno in america.

Government is socialism; you are soaking in it.

 

[danielpalos]

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

Tell that to a republican, you have serious hurdles to overcome and you refuse to directly answer any of the questions. How are we to take you seriously without the facts?

Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?

 

[WinterBorn]

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

As for your claim about EDD, you might do a little more research.
from:
"Established more than 60 years ago, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program provides benefits to individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are actively seeking work, are able to work, and are willing to accept employment."

The same restrictions that all unemployment compensation organizations have.

Also, we were talking about your claim that UC would solve the homeless problem. It obviously would not. If for no other reason than the fact that the majority of the homeless have addiction issues or mental health problems. Unless those are addressed, providing them with an unemployment check would accomplish little. In fact, it could easily cause greater harm.

A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention.

You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.

I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.

If by "going over" you mean repeatedly posting "A federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will, gainsay that contention" or the like, then yes you have. But you have not listed one single federal doctrine or state laws to support the notion that UC should provide what you want. Especially when welfare already does so.

 

[WinterBorn]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

They merely need an income if they are only unemployed. That falls under the department of employment development.

Once again, how will you provide the income? Mail it to the 9th Street Overpass?

You know my questions are valid and that you are wrong. But you are too obstinate to admit it because you want an income for sitting in your parent's basement.

A simple problem for EDD to handle.

Really? How?

 

[DOTR]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

I am not sure Will was ever rock solid. I am not sure any establishment conservative ever was. We lost our nation to liberals under their influence. "Cuck" is the perfect appellation for them.
There was a time when you read the liberals in the newspaper and then you read the one column they paid a designated conservative to write and you went by that. The internet changed that. Going around liberal elite control gave us Donald Trump...which is why they are working so hard to kick us off social media now.

 

[WinterBorn]

the same way anyone else gets their benefits.

And the checks will be delivered where? And do they have an ID to be able to get them cashed?

My questions are relevant. I guess you will continue to refuse to answer those 5 simple questions? Why am I not surprised?

not very relevant. more like special pleading. EDD could handle it.

Not relevant? All 5 questions point to the ridiculousness of your idea. Until you have answers to those questions, it is very obvious that UC would not help. But you say it is not relevant?

Here is the definition of "Special Pleading":
from: Special Pleading
"Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."

Nothing I said fits the description of that fallacy. So in addition to refusing to answer valid questions, you make up shit to disparage what I have said.

Just answer the questions or admit UC is not an answer for homelessness.

He is wrong, he know he is, he hasn’t got that part figured out and can’t admit it, it is an angle he hasn’t thought of, that and how to support an additional 3.1 trillion in added spending, according to his figures.

There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.

There is no provision for UC to act as welfare either.

 

[hadit]

EDD could handle it.

Could handle what? Overcoming addiction and mental health problems? Providing homeless people with a mailing address? Exactly what would EDD handle?

I admire your persistence in dealing with danielpalos. He's impervious to fact and logic and simply will not learn. We've gotten him to the point where we've shown that his own numbers mean annual expenditures of more than $3 trillion, but he won't say how his plan will pay for itself, only keeps insisting that it will, and keeps changing word definitions to make his ideas sound palatable.