California Mayor Wants to Jail Homeless - Redding Separation of Church and Hate

[danielpalos]

That is utter BS.

lol. i don't believe You; want to Argue about it?

 

[danielpalos]

No kidding.

I know one living out of her car, even though she makes about $28/hr. She gambles it away.

special pleading? you need a better rationale. why doesn't she find a boyfriend to help pay rent somewhere?

 

[dcsports]

Poverty may be one dilemma. It is simply too expensive or a lack of confidence in the amount of capital available for consumer spending to "get out of that situation" has that effect on Persons in that situation.

What? Please restate

 

[danielpalos]

lol - now you are using other terms incorrectly. Please use your own words, and we'll have a much better conversation.

Here's what I'm getting from you, as it relates to this topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps we can use this to break into a discussion.

1) People are homeless (and we're referring to the long term, living on the street homeless) because they are unemployed.
2) The nature of capitalism prevents certain groups of people, including the homeless, from working.
3) Giving the homeless money will solve their problem.
4) Anyone who is unemployed, even if they choose to not be employed, should be paid by the government as if they were working.
5) The payments for those not working should be a minimum of the equivalent of $14/hour ($29K/year).
6) These payments will end poverty
7) These payments will not decrease productivity - people working will still continue to work, on the books, even if they only get paid $1/hour more than not working.
8) These payments will be paid for (somehow?) through increased economic activity resulting from these people spending the money they've been given.

Does that sum it up?

FYI - All of these have been 'rebutted'.

lol. you need a Superior argument not any form of inferior fallacy to claim that to be True.

Any person who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment Compensation in an at-will employment State. Why do You believe they should not?

 

[Lord of Planar]

lol - now you are using other terms incorrectly. Please use your own words, and we'll have a much better conversation.

Here's what I'm getting from you, as it relates to this topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps we can use this to break into a discussion.

1) People are homeless (and we're referring to the long term, living on the street homeless) because they are unemployed.
2) The nature of capitalism prevents certain groups of people, including the homeless, from working.
3) Giving the homeless money will solve their problem.
4) Anyone who is unemployed, even if they choose to not be employed, should be paid by the government as if they were working.
5) The payments for those not working should be a minimum of the equivalent of $14/hour ($29K/year).
6) These payments will end poverty
7) These payments will not decrease productivity - people working will still continue to work, on the books, even if they only get paid $1/hour more than not working.
8) These payments will be paid for (somehow?) through increased economic activity resulting from these people spending the money they've been given.

Does that sum it up?

FYI - All of these have been 'rebutted'.

I agree with you.

There are a few who are mentally ill that need help. Most the remaining long term homeless, are homeless due to additions or other things that cause irresponsibility. I am not one to enable irresponsibility. I am all for solutions that end up making positive differences.

 

[Lord of Planar]

special pleading? you need a better rationale. why doesn't she find a boyfriend to help pay rent somewhere?

You expect me to read how mind?

 

[danielpalos]

You expect me to read how mind?

ok. what if she hits a jackpot; would she be as silly, then? Or, cards. Practice makes perfect for men, why not women. If she really wants that lifestyle as a choice, she should be free to do it.

Off-grid living may be better if she should acquire a petty cash fund for that purpose. Some videos on the Internet show women buying riverboat type of houseboats.

 

[dcsports]

The law or federal doctrine concerning the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party. It is much simpler and more cost effective to ensure the general operation of any given law, to better ensure market friendliness in our mixed market economy.

Labor should be able to obtain compensation for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. There can no legal or moral work requirement for public benefits except as an Punishment for a Crime. Equal protection of the law is in our several Constitutions.

That's not an equal protection argument. You are advocating against policy, not people being treated as unequal.

 

[dcsports]

lol. you need a Superior argument not any form of inferior fallacy to claim that to be True.

That's been done. Pick one of those points and make your argument, and I'll be happy to respond.

Any person who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment Compensation in an at-will employment State. Why do You believe they should not?

Any person can apply for unemployment compensation. If they meet the requirements, they'll get it. I think the hangup here is that in most states, simply choosing not to work isn't covered under the program.

 

[danielpalos]

That's not an equal protection argument. You are advocating against policy, not people being treated as unequal.

Labor should be able to obtain compensation for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. There can no legal or moral work requirement for public benefits except as an Punishment for a Crime. Equal protection of the law is in our several Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

That's been done. Pick one of those points and make your argument, and I'll be happy to respond.



Any person can apply for unemployment compensation. If they meet the requirements, they'll get it. I think the hangup here is that in most states, simply choosing not to work isn't covered under the program.

That is unequal protection of the law. Labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment benefits. We simply need to upgrade that legal and physical infrastructure.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but right wing "hate on the Poor" not any form of valid and reasonable arguments.

 

[Individual]

A failure of Government to better provide for the general welfare of the People?

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

Actually a failure, or perhaps in some cases simply a refusal, of some individuals to become responsible and productive members of the societies they live within.

 

[Individual]

Capitalism has a natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment. Government via social-ism can solve for that capital and market inefficiency via existing legal and physical infrastructure and in a manner that also promotes the general prosperity.

You keep repeating "capitalism has a natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment.
And you still haven't answered many questions asked, such as:
What is capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
You appear to assert that simply existing should be remunerated. Why, and by whom?

 

[danielpalos]

I agree with you.

There are a few who are mentally ill that need help. Most the remaining long term homeless, are homeless due to additions or other things that cause irresponsibility. I am not one to enable irresponsibility. I am all for solutions that end up making positive differences.

Why do you believe those who are addicted and have recourse to an income for simply being unemployed would be less likely to participate more in the health care sector?

 

[danielpalos]

That's not an equal protection argument. You are advocating against policy, not people being treated as unequal.

There can no legal or moral work requirement for public benefits except as an Punishment for a Crime. Equal protection of the law is in our several Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

That's been done. Pick one of those points and make your argument, and I'll be happy to respond.



Any person can apply for unemployment compensation. If they meet the requirements, they'll get it. I think the hangup here is that in most states, simply choosing not to work isn't covered under the program.

You mention "for-Cause" requirements for benefits; show me the express general State Code law that states there is any form of Cause requirement to collect public benefits in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the equal will of either party for employment or not.

 

[dcsports]

Labor should be able to obtain compensation for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. There can no legal or moral work requirement for public benefits except as an Punishment for a Crime. Equal protection of the law is in our several Constitutions.

You are going in circles here.

Yes, 'equal protection under the law' is in the constitution (federal and in many states). You aren't raising an equal protection issue.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually a failure, or perhaps in some cases simply a refusal, of some individuals to become responsible and productive members of the societies they live within.

The law is the law.

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.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

You keep repeating "capitalism has a natural rate of poverty inducing unemployment.
And you still haven't answered many questions asked, such as:
What is capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
You appear to assert that simply existing should be remunerated. Why, and by whom?

Why should I care if you refuse to look it up. I presented the definition more than once.

It is about express law, of which, the whole and entire right wing may not appeal to ignorance of it.

 

[danielpalos]

You are going in circles here.

Yes, 'equal protection under the law' is in the constitution (federal and in many states). You aren't raising an equal protection issue.

you simply don't understand the simple law.

There can no legal or moral work requirement for public benefits in any At-Will employment States except as an Punishment for a Crime. Equal protection of the law is in our several Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; somebody has to be naturally unemployed at any given time.

Only the right wing has a problem solving for the poverty inducing effects and correct for that natural rate of unemployed of capital.

 

[dcsports]

You mention "for-Cause" requirements for benefits; show me the express general State Code law that states there is any form of Cause requirement to collect public benefits in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the equal will of either party for employment or not.

Again, you are using terms incorrectly. I have to guess what you are referring to by the context.

I assume you are referencing what happens when a person is terminated 'for cause'. It depends on the worker's compensation program for a given state. Worker's compensation is not an entitlement (or "public benefit") in the way that welfare or Medicaid is. It's an insurance program, funded by employers, regulated by the state, intended as a bridge for people who are between jobs at no 'fault' of their own. Normally this includes people who were laid off, had a contract end, were fired 'unjustly' or simply let go. The people receiving 'compensation' from the program for their loss of employment have obligations - normally they have to be seeking work, although many states make allowances for job training.

Most programs exclude people who are unemployed by their choice - quit - or were terminated 'for cause'. 'For cause' means they were 'fired' for a specific infraction allowed under the program, and the employer has to show documentation that it was a valid reason and the person reasonably knew they would be fired for it. This could be, for example, anything from assaulting your boss to a repeated pattern of being late for work despite multiple warnings.

 

[dcsports]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; somebody has to be naturally unemployed at any given time.

Only the right wing has a problem solving for the poverty inducing effects and correct for that natural rate of unemployed of capital.

No one 'has to be unemployed'. The concept is that employment will never be at 100% because at any given time some people will be unemployed AND looking for work. This includes people entering the workforce, and those who are between jobs. Worth noting that people who are not actively seeking employment are not a part of the unemployment rate. (at least, not the rate normally discussed).

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you are using terms incorrectly. I have to guess what you are referring to by the context.

I assume you are referencing what happens when a person is terminated 'for cause'. It depends on the worker's compensation program for a given state. Worker's compensation is not an entitlement (or "public benefit") in the way that welfare or Medicaid is. It's an insurance program, funded by employers, regulated by the state, intended as a bridge for people who are between jobs at no 'fault' of their own. Normally this includes people who were laid off, had a contract end, were fired 'unjustly' or simply let go. The people receiving 'compensation' from the program for their loss of employment have obligations - normally they have to be seeking work, although many states make allowances for job training.

Most programs exclude people who are unemployed by their choice - quit - or were terminated 'for cause'. 'For cause' means they were 'fired' for a specific infraction allowed under the program, and the employer has to show documentation that it was a valid reason and the person reasonably knew they would be fired for it. This could be, for example, anything from assaulting your boss to a repeated pattern of being late for work despite multiple warnings.

show me the express general State Code law that states there is any form of Cause requirement to collect public benefits in our at-will employment States. Employment is at the equal will of either party for employment or not.