It sometimes confuses me too, but now I check for color highlighting.

Got a link?

Can anyone argue an opposing viewpoint on why unemployment compensation, would not be better than welfare, as we currently know, for eliminating official poverty in our republic?

I think we could reduce costs, and let the several states eliminate poverty through that mechanism. It should be considered a state's right to have the general government of the Union, Provide for the general welfare of the United States.

We don't like any idea which proposes expendature without gain.

Your ginving money to people in exchange for what..........

If we send them back to school and train them, then we get it back in the long run in taxes, and reduced crime.
If we employ them via garunteed employment at min wage, then atleast we can have clean roads, everythng cleaned and spotless.

We gain nothing as a nation by your proposal

You are going to have to kill 99% of the population (and most likely yourself).

Like I said earlier, might run out of bullets

Unemployment compensation could also help correct for the inefficiency of a "natural" unemployment rate.

We have a social contract that embodies the concept of individual liberty. We also have an at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Why wouldn't some people choose to go to school anyway, merely to upgrade their market based skill sets?

What you advocate could be perceived as being more Socialist than necessary in our mixed-market, political-economy.

What ethical or moral authority do you appeal to when claiming any such credibility and not wanting to eliminate official poverty in our republic?

I think we could reduce costs, and let the several states eliminate poverty through the mechanism of unemployment compensation. It should be considered a state's right to have the general government of the Union, Provide for the general welfare of the United States and pay for those Debts.

With the issue of official poverty solved, hypothetically; would we still need the expense of affirmative action programs?

Solving for official poverty could also "improve the standard of living" of at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws by ensuring that a simple lack of employment will not result in official poverty due to the lack of income associated with non-employment.

In other words, our Ninth Amendment would have greater ethical and moral standing in regard to at-will employment. Black listing could be decriminalized since it would not result in official poverty for any individual.

Would we need the tax burden of socialized medicine if no market participant is in official poverty? A simple, tax preferred health care capital accumulation account could be a basic minimum standard.

Anyone one on a hypothetical, at-will unemployment compensation wage could volunteer to be called first for civic obligations to reduce that cost to the private sector.

It's one answer, but it would never work practically, since anyone can become an addict. How are you going to shoot them all if you can't even locate them all to imprison? Besides, if we work to get rid of drug addicts, we'll have to shoot all those addicted to caffeine and tobacco, as well.

What do you think of religious morals tests for public office? We could also reduce the cost of Government, by administering those tests to potential representatives to government.

It should be noted however, that even the Templars and the Dominicans were unable to eradicate hypocrisy from the gene pool, so I don't think we should trample our Bill of Rights, simply to lower our tax burden.

official poverty = officially pointless

Nobody cares that you can't afford name brand clothing, the dream house you saw on MTV or your next meal.

The only reason the government wants us to argue about this crap is so they can steal our potential to gain actual wealth and have the ability to interfere with the power they have become addicted to.

Until we stop fighting over the scraps, the government officials will live like kings (and they know that).

It wouldn't include me. I don't do drugs. I don't do alcohol. But if it is 99% of the population (but I doubt that), then that works for me. If 99% of Americans are stupid enough to do drugs, then the 1% of us who are smarter than them can solve a lot more problems by getting rid of that 99%.

__________________
We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.
Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (CMC); 10 November 2000

"On my signal, unleash hell"

Distribution of Household Income by Race Infoplease.com

Why would you rather be (subjectively) ethical and moral enough to resort to the coercive use of force of the State, rather than be market friendly enough to lower our tax burden with well regulated Commerce among the several States of the Union?

What if we could lower our tax burden such that no new taxes are necessary and still eliminate official poverty in our republic?

Eliminating official poverty in our republic is not pointless. A previous generation thought it was ethical and moral to resort to forms of wealth transfer to eliminate official poverty. Why fuck with tradition now? Eliminating official poverty could be as simple as at-will employment doctrine can make it.