CDZ With 9.3 million job openings in the United States, why are there still people panhandling on the corner of Intersections?

How does that solve simple poverty and end our alleged war on poverty and those associated costs?

Unemployment compensation was never intended to solve simple poverty.

Why do you think your New & Improved UC would solve poverty, while welfare has not? Do you think means testing is really that big a problem for those living in poverty?
 
Faithful execution of our at-will employment laws means less cost for more expensive means tested welfare. Only right-wingers like yourself object to such simple measures for your socialism on a national or international basis.

I see you did not answer my question. What a surprise.

The expense for means testing is minimal. It is certainly far cheaper than people getting unemployment compensation who do not need it to live.
 
Unemployment compensation was never intended to solve simple poverty.

Why do you think your New & Improved UC would solve poverty, while welfare has not? Do you think means testing is really that big a problem for those living in poverty?
We have a better understanding of economics now and no black codes to contend with.

Means tested welfare is not intended to solve simple poverty only mitigate complex poverty.
 
We have a better understanding of economics now and no black codes to contend with.

Means tested welfare is not intended to solve simple poverty only mitigate complex poverty.

The ONLY thing means testing does is remove those people who have enough to live on their own. Not live in luxury. Not have a lot of extra money to do things with. But to live. Those who have the means to support themselves do not qualify.

And if you change unemployment compensation to be for everyone without a job, a greater amount per check, and to have no expiration, I guarantee there will be a means test. That keeps people from defrauding the tax payers.
 
I'm forcing you into a corner.
If education doesn't work, nothing else will.
Just state for the thousandth time that non-Whites should live off of White taxes.
That is just You begging that question and line of reasoning. Just admit y'all on the Right-Wing don't really care about being Legal to the Law and have no problem taking it out on the less fortunate like incorrigible, original sinners are wont to do.

The point is, there is no unemployment without natural unemployment since Labor can be easily purchased on the open market. Thus, it is only underpayment that prevents more full employment of Labor.
 
Not recently. Besides, that won't solve unequal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
No it won't. But it can get a homeless family off the streets and help keep some fed.

I don't think your concern is actually for the homeless and poor, but for your own agenda.
 
The ONLY thing means testing does is remove those people who have enough to live on their own. Not live in luxury. Not have a lot of extra money to do things with. But to live. Those who have the means to support themselves do not qualify.

And if you change unemployment compensation to be for everyone without a job, a greater amount per check, and to have no expiration, I guarantee there will be a means test. That keeps people from defrauding the tax payers.
There is no provision in our federal doctrine to provide for the general malfare only the general welfare.
 
No it won't. But it can get a homeless family off the streets and help keep some fed.

I don't think your concern is actually for the homeless and poor, but for your own agenda.
Equal protection of the Law (for legal purposes) can solve official poverty. Private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, here on Nexus Six and the Incorrigibles.
 
No, it isn't. You are simply making stuff up, storyteller. What a surprise.

No, I am not. I have been on programs with means testing. I did most of the work providing the information.

And why do you object to a means test? Isn't it a good thing to make sure the assistance is needed and not just wanted?
 
Why do we have a generational, war on poverty if what you allege is true? Capitalism has natural unemployment. And, unequal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation ensures we have continual poverty.

1) We have people with jobs.
2) We have people who have lost their job but want to work.
3) We have people who only want a free ride.

Which of those 3 do you think is more likely to live in poverty?
 
Equal protection of the Law (for legal purposes) can solve official poverty. Private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, here on Nexus Six and the Incorrigibles.

The only way UC will solve poverty is to spend billions of tax dollars on it. If we do that, we need to weed out as many of the people who have the means to support themselves as we can.
 
There is no provision in our federal doctrine to provide for the general malfare only the general welfare.

There is an expectation of responsibility from the tax payer to the people running the programs.

If someone has the means to support themselves, they should do so. They should not expect others to do it. Especially if they won't do anything to support themselves.

Make the program this big and unending? There WILL be a means test. There is means testing in every social welfare program we have.
 

Forum List

Back
Top