Lol, you're funny. Yeah, military spending is such a waste. Everybody would leave us alone if we didn't have any military spending.

Also, how the hell do you think what we spend on military could solve "official poverty"? Please, post your math.

Red herrings are also considered forms of fallacies. The Wars on Drugs and Terror or even Poverty are not real wars. It is only public policy that is based on the warfare-state mentality of last millennium. Actually complying with our Constitution could solve most of the current socioeconomic problems we are facing today. A welfare-state public policy is what is implied in our Constitution for Promoting and Providing for the general Welfare of the United States.

Simply complying with existing at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws could solve for official poverty in our republic. Why would anyone want to be less ethical and less moral than that, in our more developed, first world economy?

It is not implied in our constitution and the people that interpret the ninth amendment to be that are doing it wrong.

Think about it as "at will poverty" along with "at will employment".

However, I do agree that those aren't real wars and need to end as well. We definitely spend too much money fighting wars overseas (not too much on having the most technologically advanced fighting force the earth has ever seen). The war on drugs and poverty are a sham as well. At least we can agree on that.

However, that spending shifted to people will not solve what you believe to be "official poverty". Your spending plan will create more poverty as it gives more incentives to not work.

NO buddy ive seen what you think is the point. Everyone else has too. And we still don't agree with you. Why? Because you are wrong. Simple as that.

I don't care for the drug war. go ahead and end that. I don't particularly care for the terror war either as i thought we were always at war with terrorists. I'm not a fan of our welfare system either.

But that doesn't mean i want your horribly broken and disfunctional system either.

How did you reach your conclusion that promoting or providing for the general welfare of our republic are not implied in our Constitution? It is simply my contention that a welfare-state economic model would utilized resources better than a warfare-state economic model.

Why would at-will employment lead to poverty with a complementary unemployment compensation public policy scheme? What individual market participant would be in poverty, if they don't have a job or can't find a job, if they can apply for unemployment compensation?

Letting market participants, themselves, decide whether or not provide labor input to the economy should boost productivity of the remaining workforce. Anyone who wants a job would be able to find one sooner rather than later, if they wanted one. Why would that be worse than what we have now?

These have all been answered already.

You haven't provided any examples or analogies on how unemployment compensation, at-will is broken, since it is already partially implemented in favor of the employer.

In principle, "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Are the ethics and morals of not wanting to eliminate (official) poverty in our republic, any better than what we have now? If not, then why not use a welfare-state economic model to promote and provide for the general welfare of our republic?

You were resorting to fallacy. Are you claiming affirmative action on logic and reason, or do you simply want to agree to disagree. Either way, you are always welcome to your opinion, even if it is based on fallacy. It is a subjective moral value system.

so hiring is at will. I'm failing to see how this leads to taxpayers paying everyone minimum wage


Because welfare states fail horribly.

That's the point; it wouldn't lead to taxpayers paying everyone the minimum wage, only those market participants that need it the most. It would not be corporate welfare that you are currently paying and that can include bonuses.

We already know our current system doesn't work.

Corporate welfare is alive and well in our (welfare-state) political economy. It could be even better if it were more market friendly. It could even lower our tax burden and eliminate official poverty. All it takes is sufficient ethics and morals.

Except if thats an option i guarentee "unemployment" is gonna skyrocket. Besides, i don't care if it cures fucking aids i'm not paying someone to not work. Period.

You are already paying people to not work or need a bailout; and it costs a lot of money. What I am saying is, that we could eliminate official poverty and still reduce our tax burden eventually. Why should you have a problem if it eventually costs less in taxes than you are paying now, and you can enjoy a more efficient labor market?

In other words, you are already paying more than you need to, and not solving for official poverty. I thought you said you were for lower taxes or, at least, not wasting taxpayer money on programs that haven't worked since their inception.

and you provide no math for these statements. Show me your math.

Here are some numbers. Unemployment compensation could be used as a social safety net instead of the various programs that have not yet solved for official poverty, and could reduce the cost and size of government.

Do you work with people that are in so-called "official poverty"? I do every single day of the week. They are well fed, have cheap living, extra spending money after their bills are paid, free lunches and dinners at 1,000 places across the city, free field trips to baseball games and museums, a completely free social club to go hang out in with video games, computers (with internet), free doctor visits and medication.....and so on


So, what is this official poverty you're talking about? Is it the people that don't have some sort of disability and choose to not work? Nobody cares about those people.