Pop culture is not the only form of culture.

Why should I care if someone wants to live off of that system, indefinitely, at rock-bottom cost to the taxpayer? It would be analogous to caring if someone lives off of the minimum wage indefinitely. No one seems to care about that. In any event, they would not need to "game" the system for such a wage, all they would need to do is be legal to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws.

Do you agree that it is usually better to be legal with the laws than to be illegal with the laws? Currently, your tax money is being used for less ethical and less moral purposes while not solving for official poverty.

The point, however, is that we can actually win the war on poverty, and ameliorate forms of racism that are associated with poverty. Our economy would benefit by having more motivated labor and better employment of resources in that market.

From one perspective, it could be considered more ethical and moral to simply pay people to not provide labor input to the economy and not leave them in poverty as we do now.

We are no longer in the Iron Age. We can afford to eliminate poverty in our republic and lower our tax burden by discontinuing public policies that neither provide for the common defense or general welfare of our republic.

The so called, "War on Poverty" does not actually solve for official poverty, but tries to compensate for some of the symptoms of poverty (e.g. lack of healthcare, nutrition, housing).

How can poverty, in a money based, mixed-market political-economy be ethical or moral, when forms of economic discrimination are both legal and socially acceptable? I can understand self-imposed religious poverty for the greater glory of an immortal soul, but not secular poverty in any money based, mixed-market political-economy.

In my view, a lack of public policies that actually solve for poverty in our form of statism should be considered both unethical and immoral since they can engender more egregious forms of unethical and immoral behavior, such as the bigotry of racism.

first, this has been annoying me.
You don't solve for official poverty.
You solve for a variable,

Official poverty, is a measurment, nothing more. Poverty in its nature defies that measurement. There are many in "poverty" who are there by circumstance. There are many in "poverty" who are there because they don't do shit. There are many in poverty, who didn't do their shit in school, and develop the necessary skills to move to a higher SES. Giving them money is not the answer. Giving people stuff has never worked, teaching them to provide for themselves is a much better long-term proposition.

Put another way, what happens when the number of people subsisting on govt. hand-outs grows to the point were it exceeds the ability of the working class to provide for them.

Here is an issue involving our Ninth Amendment and the privilege and immunity of creating and dissolving social contracts that involve employment, at-will.

How does your logic and reason apply to two potential job applicants of different skin colors, and a hiring manager that practices racism? If a significant portion of the population practiced that same racism, wouldn't it have the effect of leaving some people in poverty?

Why have the inefficiency and perceived "racism" of affirmative action or anti-blacklisting laws (which deny and disparage our privileges and immunities), when we could be ameliorating perceived racism and eliminating official poverty at the same time?

I use official poverty to distinguish between absolute poverty, real poverty, and relative poverty.

If official poverty is due to a lack of income in our money-based, mixed-market, political-economy, then solving for a lack of income via existing at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws with an unemployment compensation wage would solve for that lack of income and solve for official poverty it that unemployment wage beats the established poverty rate.

I really don't follow this...unemployment compensation is already available for those that lost their jobs through lay-offs and in some cases, when they're fired so exactly what are you asking for?

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

He just wants free everything for those that make a life choice that work isn't for them.

That's the impression I get also.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I think we should all boycott work if that's the policy that is passed. Would be very funny to see who's going to take care of everybody at that point.

No people have to work a JOB to get minimum wage. WORK. JOB. These are things that do not apply to your program.

First of Solving For is a mathematical term. If it is also a term in the socio-economic sciences, please frovide link.

Second You didn't answer my question


What happens when the number of people subsisting on govt. hand-outs grows to the point were it exceeds the ability of the working class to provide for them?

People on atwill unemployment compensation like you propose, do not farm, but they still eat, they still need living space, and that living space still needs heated, plumbing, electricity. They use resources, if they don't give any back what is it going to do to the economic situation? It will cause inflation, and the same group of people will still end up below the official poverty line, No matter where you set it.




Which is the point of the question I asked earlier

Why do we still have official poverty, and the expense of a War on Poverty, if the mechanism is already available to eliminate it? In other words, by solving for official poverty, we can lower our tax burden by ending the War on Poverty.

As a matter of practicality, unemployment compensation is as simple to administer as minimum wage laws are now, only we could be ending official poverty, and its impact on racism in our republic.

Actually I am doing it for the greater glory of our republic and to comply with our Constitution and pledge.

Why are you resorting to forms of communism via command economics? We have a Bill of Rights and specifically, the Ninth Amendment for a reason.