Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. your "morals" don't matter.Because it is not welfare. It is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine, Only the Republican Doctrine.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 UC to act as welfare either.
Not as you describe it. Your version allows for indefinite drawing of a check, not seeking a job, and even collecting when you quit a job or are fired for cause.
solve for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.
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.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?
EDD is a Government department.on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.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.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.
And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.
It takes a job of at least 30 dollars per hour to reach middle class in todays america. Post high school education is the way.
how is that?solve for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.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.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?
Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
EDD is a Government department.on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.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.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.
And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.
Yopu would not survive witrhout government rule.There are some (Socialists, Communists, leftists, Marxists, all the same shit) that are too stupid to survive without government rule.
how is that?solve for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.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.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?
Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
There are some (Socialists, Communists, leftists, Marxists, all the same shit) that are too stupid to survive without government rule.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.EDD is a Government department.on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.
And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.
Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.
Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
makes some of us wonder, why we even have a "McCarthy era phrase in our pledge".how is that?solve for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
What, exactly, will the expanded UC do that welfare does not already do?
Welfare can do that. UC cannot.
UC does not cover people who quit their job. UC only lasts 76 weeks, at the most.
it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.EDD is a Government department.on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.
And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.
Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.
Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.EDD is a Government department.on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.
And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.
Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.
Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.EDD is a Government department.And we are back to my 5 questions. Answer those and you might have a point. Your refusal to answer the questions proves my point.
Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.
Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.EDD is a Government department.
Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.
Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.
on an at-will basis. it is not a lie. and, if Persons have recourse to an income, they can be required to get off the street.Yes, I have. It must not have been dumbed down enough for right wingers.I have already gone over both. You have no argument only the standard bigotry of the right wing.You have not listed a single federal doctrine or state law to back this claim you have made over and over and over.
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.
and, welfare doesn't do that or we would have no homeless on the streets.
Another lie, homeless will always be because there are those that want that lifestyle.
Unemployment compensation is a more well known phenomena. Simply understanding the concept of a positive multiplier effect should inform you of a "growth factor" for an economy. It has been measured at two, by a study. that means; for every one dollar of spending to correct for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that spending generates two dollars of economic activity.A positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization must grow our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics, knows this.it answers every question and the whole point of our argument is equal protection of the law.Indeed it is. But that does not answer a single question.
Also, the EDD follows the same requirement rules as the current UC.
You want to spend at least $3 trillion every year that we don't have and you have given us no reason to believe it will pay for itself. You insisting that it magically will is not convincing. You have done no research, in fact I had to do your math for you because you didn't want to deal with real numbers. I think I'll start calling you the Barbie poster, because apparently for you, "Math is hard".
Okay, that's the vague, magical explanation we've come to expect from you. Now, give us the real numbers, you know, that hard stuff. And while you're at it, feel free to explain how the stimulus packages we paid for in the past have only left us long-term debt.
And, higher paid Labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
Eliminating the inequality in the application of at-will employment laws could generate an even higher multiplication effect and improve the efficiency of our economy in the process.
another lie. Persons have a natural right to live on the street if they don't have recourse to an income.Except what you want will not solve simple poverty, and will certainly not solve homelessness.Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?Solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States; not dumb enough for the right wing?
Quit trolling, either put up or shut up.
In fact, welfare would do the exact same thing only better.
Agreed, the programs in many cities will help the homeless get on their feet if they want.