Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

[The Mark]

What is so difficult about solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis? Any questions or do you only have fallacy for your Cause.

Your statement lacks meaning - it conveys no message.

You cannot reasonably expect me to respond to nothing.
You cannot reasonably expect me to ask questions about a null value.
You cannot reasonably expect me to take you seriously if you call my statements fallacies without explaining why they are such.

Put some detail into it.

 

[danielpalos]

Your statement lacks meaning - it conveys no message.

You cannot reasonably expect me to respond to nothing.
You cannot reasonably expect me to ask questions about a null value.
You cannot reasonably expect me to take you seriously if you call my statements fallacies without explaining why they are such.

Put some detail into it.

They don't lack meaning; it is only your lack of reading comprehension that fails to assign a relevant meaning. why not get a clue and maybe even a Cause.

 

[The Mark]

They don't lack meaning; it is only your lack of reading comprehension that fails to assign a relevant meaning. why not get a clue and maybe even a Cause.

Your statement lacks meaning.

My reading comprehension is not at fault.

 

[danielpalos]

Your statement lacks meaning.

My reading comprehension is not at fault.

Yes, it lies on your side simply because you aren't asking for clarification; which renders your point of view, merely a diversion.

 

[The Mark]

Yes, it lies on your side simply because you aren't asking for clarification; which renders your point of view, merely a diversion.

Negative.

I'm not asking you for clarification because past history of asking you for clarification has shown attempts at such to be unfruitful.

And you have no idea what my point of view is, let alone whether it's a diversion or not...which doesn't make any sense anyway.

 

[danielpalos]

Negative.

I'm not asking you for clarification because past history of asking you for clarification has shown attempts at such to be unfruitful.

And you have no idea what my point of view is, let alone whether it's a diversion or not...which doesn't make any sense anyway.

Only because you had nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy, instead of discussion.

 

[The Mark]

Only because you had nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy, instead of discussion.

You cannot seriously be claiming I diverted a conversation which never started, let alone that doing so is some kind of fallacy.

Then again, maybe you can.

Madness.

 

[danielpalos]

You cannot seriously be claiming I diverted a conversation which never started, let alone that doing so is some kind of fallacy.

Then again, maybe you can.

Madness.

I am only claiming that resorting to diversions is no way to have a discussion.

Why not solve simple poverty in our republic?

 

[The Mark]

I am only claiming that resorting to diversions is no way to have a discussion.

It's A way, but not a good way.

Why not solve simple poverty in our republic?

Why?
How?
Where?
Who?
When?

 

[danielpalos]

It's A way, but not a good way.

Why?
How?
Where?
Who?
When?

Hey, you got me; I thought you were going to quibble about the term, simple poverty.

It should be self-evident that we should solve simple poverty instead of merely wage a War on Poverty for around a generation.

We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in place in our republic through unemployment compensation.

It must pertain to our republic.

Those persons for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

It could happen whenever our elected representative want to prove they are serious about Faith and faithfully executing our own laws.

 

[imagep]

Negative.

I'm not asking you for clarification because past history of asking you for clarification has shown attempts at such to be unfruitful.

And you have no idea what my point of view is, let alone whether it's a diversion or not...which doesn't make any sense anyway.

. I'm just glade that it ain't just me. We had this same conversation yesterday.

 

[danielpalos]

. I'm just glade that it ain't just me. We had this same conversation yesterday.

Yes, and, I provided links. Was learning more about the concept so you have a clue, even if not a Cause, too much work?

 

[Muhammed]

monthly jobs report. rage or rejoice.

Not nearly enough. This country needs pro-employment and pro-economic growth policies to be implemented.

That would include anti-immigration and isolationist trade policies.

 

[The Mark]

Hey, you got me; I thought you were going to quibble about the term, simple poverty.

You're right, I forgot "What?".

Allow me to rectify that nigh-unforgivable lapse.

It should be self-evident that we should solve simple poverty instead of merely wage a War on Poverty for around a generation.

What?

We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in place in our republic through unemployment compensation.

What?

It must pertain to our republic.

What?

Those persons for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

What?

It could happen whenever our elected representative want to prove they are serious about Faith and faithfully executing our own laws.

What?

 

[danielpalos]

You're right, I forgot "What?".

Allow me to rectify that nigh-unforgivable lapse.

What?

What?

What?

What?

What?

Thank you for having nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy for your Cause; let me know when you want me to regard you seriously when diagnosing the Body politic. Any valid argumentation will do.

 

[The Mark]

Thank you for having nothing but diversion and that form of fallacy for your Cause; let me know when you want me to regard you seriously when diagnosing the Body politic. Any valid argumentation will do.

Allow me to put some detail in.

Hey, you got me; I thought you were going to quibble about the term, simple poverty.

You're right, I forgot "What?".

Allow me to rectify that nigh-unforgivable lapse.

It should be self-evident that we should solve simple poverty instead of merely wage a War on Poverty for around a generation.

What? "Should be" does not mean "is". Furthermore, that's only your opinion.
Why should we solve simple poverty? In what way is our current "war on poverty" worse than your idea? What is the purpose of adding "for a generation" at the end of that sentence? It ads no useful information.

We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in place in our republic through unemployment compensation.

What? Seriously...what? Of course we already have a legal and physical infrastructure in place - have to, in order to supply unemployment compensation. In what way does this existing infrastructure apply to your vague idea, and how do you expect it will need to be changed if your idea is implemented. Is it your idea?

It must pertain to our republic.

What? WHAT must pertain to our republic? Why does whatever it is NEED to pertain to our republic? What do you think our republic is?

Those persons for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

What? What persons? What is this solving for ****? Is this a math problem now? What is poverty of money? Why may solving for it be enough? What is enough?

It could happen whenever our elected representative want to prove they are serious about Faith and faithfully executing our own laws.

What? Why would they want to prove they are religious? Why would they want to faithfully execute our current laws? They'd make less money, and not get re-elected. We don't actually care about what laws they bypass, so long as they give us enough ****.

Also, how is religion related to faithfully executing current law? In fact, isn't it counter in some ways?



Done for the moment.

 

[imagep]

Hey, you got me; I thought you were going to quibble about the term, simple poverty.

It should be self-evident that we should solve simple poverty instead of merely wage a War on Poverty for around a generation.

We already have the legal and physical infrastructure in place in our republic through unemployment compensation.

It must pertain to our republic.

Those persons for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

It could happen whenever our elected representative want to prove they are serious about Faith and faithfully executing our own laws.

I appreciate that you are beginning to get just a little more descriptive, but I still wish that you would explain just a little more details. Which laws are we not executing? Are there some laws involving unemployment benefits that are not being properly distributed? Just go ahead and blurt it out.

 

[pinqy]

What is so difficult about solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis? Any questions or do you only have fallacy for your Cause.

Maybe I've deciphered this. It appears that you're saying that anyone who chooses not to work (at-will basis) should receive unemployment compensation that matches the poverty threshold. Which raises the question of how that could be paid for especially as fewer people would work as there would be no incentive for those earning near the poverty line to keep working: they'd be better off quitting and collecting unemployment.

 

[imagep]

Maybe I've deciphered this. It appears that you're saying that anyone who chooses not to work (at-will basis) should receive unemployment compensation that matches the poverty threshold. Which raises the question of how that could be paid for especially as fewer people would work as there would be no incentive for those earning near the poverty line to keep working: they'd be better off quitting and collecting unemployment.

I suspect that is the idea also.

Assumably, if unemployment rises, and if the unemployment benefit is large enough, people drawing unemployment will still continue to be able to spend (creating demand), and thus companies will start hiring to meet that demand.

Of course you are correct that if we paid that much in unemployment benefits, who the heck would want to work when they could draw just as much on unemployment? It's a moral hazard issue.

My position is that demand would be just as high if we required those unemployed people to work (even if it was in government jobs building and repairing infrastructure or other jobs that create value for society) for their money, without creating the moral hazard.

 

[danielpalos]

What? "Should be" does not mean "is". Furthermore, that's only your opinion.
Why should we solve simple poverty? In what way is our current "war on poverty" worse than your idea? What is the purpose of adding "for a generation" at the end of that sentence? It ads no useful information.

Yes, it currently is not, that simple, but, it should be unless you like big government; which hasn't been your position in the past. Has that changed and are you now for big government, as usual.

Our current War on Poverty has been prosecuted for around a generation without actually solving for any poverty; and yes, adding for around a generation gives some indication of the time value of money under any form of Capitalism. Do you not have any understanding of Capitalism or the time value of money, either.

It should be a self-evident truth that actually solving simple poverty should be a better solution to that social dilemma, simply because full employment of resources in any given market must better provide for the general welfare than any market failures or inefficiencies in those same markets.

 

[danielpalos]

In what way does this existing infrastructure apply to your vague idea, and how do you expect it will need to be changed if your idea is implemented. Is it your idea?

It has to do with the concept of employment at will and unemployment compensation that could clear our poverty guidelines. Why do you believe a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will are "vague"?

 

[danielpalos]

I appreciate that you are beginning to get just a little more descriptive, but I still wish that you would explain just a little more details. Which laws are we not executing? Are there some laws involving unemployment benefits that are not being properly distributed? Just go ahead and blurt it out.

I thought it was self-evident that I have been referring to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding employment at will. It has to do with the concept of equality, perhaps you may have heard of it as well. That doctrine and those laws apply to labor as well as employers. There is no legal reason to deny or disparage labor (or the least wealthy) from their enumerated rights without Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe I've deciphered this. It appears that you're saying that anyone who chooses not to work (at-will basis) should receive unemployment compensation that matches the poverty threshold. Which raises the question of how that could be paid for especially as fewer people would work as there would be no incentive for those earning near the poverty line to keep working: they'd be better off quitting and collecting unemployment.

You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply are really just suggestions. UI could be funded through general taxes instead of our current regime; unemployment compensation can also be considered an investment in the general welfare due to a positive multiplier effect on our economy. Compare and contrast that with our exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty.

 

[mmi]

Daniel, I asked you a direct question earlier in the thread that you still have not addressed....did you miss it? or just ignoring it because you can't answer it?

Wow. The War and Peace of discussions about unemployment.

I jumped in right around here. Can ya let me know what this question is?

 

[mmi]

when drawn out in the slightest we learn just how silly your ideas are. From flooding the monetary supply without the slightest thought to what that actually does to inflation, to some convoluted idea that increasing government programs like unemployment insurance/compliance, and welfare programs will somehow decrease the size and scope of government

Does "flooding the monetary supply" refer to quantitative easing?

Do you think raising the minimum wage could decrease the size of government?