Athias

Can you identify any other attributes of this spiritual being that sets it apart from other hypothetical spiritual beings? For example, how is this God different from ghosts?

I hope you don't mind me continuing to focus on the definition. I think a high degree of clarity is important before we proceed. I'd hate for misunderstandings to arise because you and I weren't on the same page.

Here's the thing. I don't think obamacare is perfect.

It is super flawed. I would have no objection to trump destroying obamacare if he had a workable solution for how to get healthcare to people to replace it. But he has absolutely no plan for that. Not one suggestion.

So blowing up the plan in place without doing anything to fix the problem is not useful, it is dangerous. 

i never claimed most don't. Just pointing out that he was handed a successful business empire. It is a very relevant point when people argue he is a great business man. 

no, i'm saying that his only skill is being a con man. Other people built him up as a businessman genius for their own ends (to sell a tv show and a book). Trump then took their work and managed to con people with it. 

true, the show turned into a success. but not because he is a great business man. He is just a good con man. Trump then used the success of the show to convince people he was a good business man, when he wasnt. 

"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."

So he just starts kissing them. He doesn't even wait. He just does it. That describes a sexual assault.

Especially with his history of things like walking into changing rooms of teenage girls.

how do you know there was an absence of duress? He is a rich man and connected. He could ruin someone's career if they said no. That could easily create the conditions of duress. 

no, the operative term is "numerous". People don't build up that many allegations, let alone credible ones, without there being some level of truth to them. Add to that he admits to sexually assaulting women, and that he likes to walk into rooms of teenage girls getting changed. 

ohh i get it. So he is rich, and therefore he can walk in on naked teenage girls against their will.

Thank you for explaining that his wealth means others don't have rights. 

no, his failure to accomplish anything useful informs his capacity and his competence.

about how he was handed a fortune by his father?

About how he ran a number of businesses into the ground?

About how most of his businesses are now run by other people

and he largely just trades on the brand name he managed to make out of his name?

Trump was basically washed up before the apprentice.

He got onto that show because real business men had better things to do than be on some TV show, so the show creator turned to trump.

That show managed to convince people that he actually knew something about business. He then built a business around that false impression by selling on his name. The same way he sold on that name and belief that he was competent to run for president. 

no, he's a con man whose con got out in front of him. He wanted to run for president to pump up the name recognition of his brand. He didn't intend to win, he intended to do the only thing he cares about, make himself richer and more famous. 

trump has accomplished extremely little in office. He is a really shitty president. 

What has he got done? He hasn't accomplished anything to do with globalization. He hasn't ended wars. He did manage a tax cut, but it was 99% for the rich and corporations, so not exactly a huge success for most americans. He has succeeded in ballooning the deficit (that the right loves to pretend they care about when democrats are in office, oddly silent about it now). So tell me, what has he accomplished?

He "doesn't even wait". he just kisses them and grabs them.

This is sexual assault.

And just because they "let you do it" doesn't mean it isn't sexual assault.

if you didn't get consent (which he pretty explicitly says he doesn't bother with) then it is sexual assault.

Given his numerous sexaul assault allegations

and creepy history (like walking into beauty pageant changing rooms)

he isn't even trying to hide the fact that he is a sexual predator.

So he really doesn't have any kind of moral high road over other sexual predators. 

Cycling through his cabinet like a carousel and creating a horrendously dysfunctional government doesn't exactly scream "competent".

He wrote an entire book on his practices.

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves. but they can get very excited by those who do. That is why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest, the greatest and the most spectacular.”

― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

We can all agree that Trump is no Washington, Lincoln, or Kennedy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-andrew-neil-election-bill-clinton-paid-rupert-murdoch-party-a9341221.html

https://www.majorityleader.gov/content/president-trump%E2%80%99s-broken-promises-american-people

Yup, because using your celebrity status to intimidate women into being silent about it equals consent.  Also, if it was completely consensual, then why would Trump's attorney pay $130,000 in hush money to sign a nondisclosure agreement?

Needs evidence (which shouldn't be difficult considering since you claim it was on live television)

I'm willing to do this but some of my beliefs involve conspiracy theories as my God is in charge of the real world Illuminati, so I won't answer too many questions about that aspect.

Nor should it.  We are practicing at debate, not reinforcing our own personal bias.  If I had to vote by validity alone I'd often vote against my own arguments. As I say above, we don't even have to win the argument to win the debate under the  present system.  I'd like to see a vote system that rewards cogent formatting and excellence in composition.  I'd also like to see a degree of difficulty modifier.

I'd point out that AKmath is a very smart debater who just doesn't seem to care much about completion.  Mharman has many excellent debates on DDO so I'm lucky he gave up when he did.   

I am also well aware of your excellence as a debater so in principle I ought not to consider a debate vs. you without some major advantage in argument- an advantage which I doubt you'd accept.  In practice, however, talented debaters are more fun to fight.  I like my position on all three of the debates you mention although my arguments could use some improvement (for which I'm sure you'd provide motivation).  My mom died last week and I have a few busy weeks of arrangements and packing up her things etc. ahead  but let's try to find something to debate in July.

I value the respect you offered, thanks for it.

he really, really is. 

true. he's a bit of an idiot savant at salesmanship.

He's a talented con man.

but an absolute garbage president. 

even he didn't think he was going to win. he was doing it in order to make money and pump up his brand.

But again, his ability to con people into believing in him does not mean he is a powerful president. His inability to get anything done proves he is inept and ineffective. 

i have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that trump (an admitted sexual assaulter) is somehow morally superior to people who commit other sex crimes?

you kind of miss my point though. We could elect a chicken president, but since it has no concept of what that power is, or how to use it, it in fact has no power at all. Trump is like the chicken. He is an imbecile. He has no real concept of how to get things done. He doesn't understand the limits of his power, or even what his job is. He fails to understand basic principles of reality (like don't drink cleaning products or you can't nuke a hurricane). 

You are correct that his power comes from the people who elected him. But his ineptitude means that this power is largely wasted as he can't use it. Therefore he is not "the most powerful person in history of the universe". He is a man-child who has been placed into high office and is proceeding to throw tantrums when he can't get his way. 

Why?

First I think there is one major distinction to make.  Protestants don't understand that there is a difference between prayer and worship.  Since Protestants lack the Mass, they cannot understand the difference.

So Jesus is a king in the line of David.  In the Davidic kingdom the king's mother was the queen.  People would petition the queen to ask the king for favours on their behalf.  When Jesus told John, here is your mother he made Mary the mother of all mankind - she is the new Eve as Jesus is the new Adam.

So we petition Mary to pray for us and to help us be like her in loving her son.

Why would the Holy Church absorb a worldly custom of petition to the King's mother [a Queen] to intercede for us with the King, when the King, himself, [Christ] declared himself to be our Advocate with and to the Father? That would imply the Lord's Prayer to not be an effective mode of prayer, ["after this manner, pray ye"] by praying directly to the Father, in the name of Christ, for our gratitude and supplication?

That is a pretty specific question - and rather biased in presentation.  The origin of the Crosier is unknown.

Some writers trace an affinity with the lituus, or rod used by the Roman augurs in their divinations, while others again trace in the crosier an adaptation of the ordinary walking-sticks which were used for support on journeys and in churches before the introduction of seats (Catalani, Pont. Rom., Proleg., xx). At all events, it came at a very early date to be one of the principal insignia of the episcopal office. Just how soon is not easily determined, since in the early passages of the Fathers in which the word occurs it cannot be ascertained whether it is to be taken literally or metaphorically (see 1 Corinthians 4:21) or whether it designates an ecclesiastical ornament at all. In liturgical usage it probably goes back to the fifth century (Kirchenlex., s.v. Hirtenstab). Mention of it is made in a letter of Pope Celestine I (d. 432) to the Bishops of Vienne and Narbonne. Staffs have indeed been found in the catacombs that date from the fourth century but their ceremonial character has not been established. The first unequivocal reference to the crosier as a liturgical instrument occurs in the twenty-seventh canon of the Council of Toledo (633). At present it is employed by bishops whenever they perform solemn pontifical functions, by right in their own dioceses and by privilege outside, and by inferior prelates whenever they are privileged to exercise pontifical functions.

You might as well ask why did Moses carry the Lituus.  Popes don't currently use the Crosier.

The lituus staff a.k.a. the crossier are a direct descendant of "the crook" or crooked wand which was carried by Pharaoh Manes and Pharaoh Narmur/Narmer (a.k.a. Cush and Nimrod) and their pontifs. They had spread their teachings of the Kemetic mysteries to the Asyrians and Lydians who were located in Asia Minor. They were also known as the "Luds" or "Ludines." They were competent mariners who would later settle in Central Italy (which later became "Saturnia") and become known as the Estruscans. The Estruscans would later develop the Latin Church, where they practiced augury--disemboweling animals and telling fortunes based on the arrangement--and become incorporated by Constanine in his Holy Roman empire. Constantine was a pagan. Constantine was an adherent to the Babylonian and Kemetic mysteries. Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine claimed to have looked at the Sun and seen a cross of a light. This is not a reference to the Cross at Calvary, but the Ankh which represents the cross of Heru a.k.a Tammuz, especially considering that he looked at "the Sun."

It has to do with how the Jews counted time.  Any part of the day counted as the whole "day & night."

Because it is Biblical.

We know that Elizabeth is in her 6th month of pregnancy when Jesus is conceived.

And behold, yourkinswoman Elizabeth in her old agehas also conceived a son; and this isthe sixth month with her who wascalled barren. For with God nothingwill be impossible.

So if we can establish when John the Baptist was  born we can establish when Jesus was born.

Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served inthe “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripturerecords as the eighth course among the twenty four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift ofpriests served one week in the temple for twotimes each year. The course of Abias servedduring the eighth week and the thirty-secondweek in the annual cycle. However, when didthe cycle of courses begin?

In our calendar, the Day ofAtonement would land anywhere fromSeptember 22 to October 8.

Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John theBaptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. (See Luke 1:5-24) This entails that Saint John the Baptistwould have been conceived somewhere aroundthe end of September, placing John’s birth at theend of June. 

Add six months to the end of June and you get the end of December for the birth of Jesus - hence December 25.  For a fuller description:

This was the eighth of the priestly courses of ministration inthe Temple (I Chron. 24:10), and occurred, as did the others, twice inthe year.

The "Courses" were changed every week, beginning each with a Sabbath. The reckoning commenced on the 22nd day of Tisri or Ethanim (Ap. 51. 5).This was the eighth and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles = the "GreatDay of the Feast" (John 7:37), and was a Sabbath (Lev. 23:39)

The first course fell by lot to Jehoiarib, and the eighth to Abia orAbijah (1Chron. 24:10).

Bearing in mind that all the courses served together at the threeGreat Feasts, the dates for the two yearly "ministrations" of Abiah willbe seen to fall as follows:

     The first (*1) ministration was from 12 - 18Chisleu = December 6 - 12.

     The second ministration was from 12 -18 Sivan= June 13 - 19.

The announcement therefore to Zacharias in the Temple as to the conceptionof John the Baptist took place between 12 - 18 SIVAN (June 13 -19), inthe year 5 B.C.  After finishing his "ministration", the aged priest"departed to his own house" (Luke 1:23) which was in a city (*2) in "thehill country" of Juda (verse 39).

The day following the end of the "Course of Abia" being a Sabbath (Sivan19), he would not be able to leave Jerusalem before the 20th.

The thirty miles journey would probably occupy, for an old man, a coupleof days at least.  He would therefore arrive at his house on the 21stor 22nd.  This leaves ample time for the miraculous "conception" ofElizabeth to take place on or about the 23rd of Sivan (*3) - which wouldcorrespond to June 23 -24 of that year.  The fact of the conceptionand its date would necessarily be known at the time and afterwards,and hence the 23rd of SIVAN would henceforth be associated with the conceptionof John the Baptist as the 1st of TEBETH would be with that of our Lord.

But the same influences that speedily obscured and presently obliteratedthe real dates of our Lord's "Begetting" and Birth, were also at work withregard to those of the Forerunner, and with the same results.  Assoon as the true Birth day of Christ had been shifted from its properdate, viz. the 15th of Tisri (September 29), and a Festival Day from thePagan Calendars substituted for it (viz. December 25), then everythingelse had to be altered too.

One doesn't become a saint as soon as they put on a collar.  There are many things I could discuss like the infiltration of the Catholic Church by communists in the 30, and their letting gays into the priesthood.

It is not a problem only for Catholic clergy:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/protestant-sex-abuse-boz-tchividijian_n_4019347

It was meant to be symbolic of the crushing of Satan's head as noted in Genesis.  I personally think the whole thing is ugly.  Many poor things have been done artistically since Vatican II.  Bad art is bad art, yet it doesn't invalidate any teachings.  Artistic interpretation is not protected by the Holy Spirit.

So are you telling him that baptism predates Christian baptism by thousands of years? 

If we're talking about financial power, then the pope would face some serious competition from powerful billionaire tycoons, moguls, and oligarchs for the title of "most financially powerful person in the world". Sure, the pope is rich, but I'm pretty sure he isn't THE most financially powerful individual in the world. 

I know the pope has had several controversies regarding possible cover-ups, but that isn't nearly enough to amount to a global child sex trafficking ring. This is something I'm going to have to look further into. Also not sure about the extent of the Pope's influence in Hollywood (if there is indeed any). 

According to allthingsfinance, as the spiritual leader of the Catholic world and the King of the Vatican, the pope's net worth is around $10-$15 billion. This makes him extremely financially powerful, but still not nearly enough for him to be #1.

A lot of this is just personal observations, but it appears that race is becoming more and more of a social construct. Rachel Dolezal is just one obvious example of somebody choosing what race they belong to, and I have no problem with her identifying as non white, and in fact prefer she continues to do so.  It seems though that people are identifying as white when they feel they are intelligent. Be around a group of black adolescents much and you will see them rag their smart friend with being white, because he like to stay on top of his school work. Eventually this kid starts adhering to white culture. At first it may just start with him eating mayonnaise, but then he starts watching comic book movies or playing Pokemon card games, maybe he marries a white woman, goes to a white church and eventually obtains a good credit score.

On the other hand, if you are around enough white youth, you will see people like Rachel Dolezal are pretty common. A white young man may start to wear his pants in a way that exposes his rear end. Perhaps he will listen to rap, and involve his self in hoodlum behavior. He will consider himself black. He may grow up to marry a black woman, have black kids and engage in other activities his shallow view of blackness decides is appropriate such as playing dice games or whatever black persons do. 

As this self selecting continues, with the dumb whites identifying as black and the smart black continuing to identify as white, the differences between the races will grow. It's not just smart blacks identifying as whites. A lot of Asians are doing it as well. Many hispanics who view themselves as too smart for their race identify as white now, such as Ted Cruz. Anyone who is following smart Jewish people on Twitter, like I am will see many of them start to claim to be white because they are ashamed of their race. (true some of them claim to be white as an excuse to bash white people while having a white pass, but it is not universally true).

This is obviously good for the white race. The white race is made stronger through poaching the best of every other race. It prevents a problem though. How does the world respond to the fact that after this divide is so big enough it will be undeniable that the white race is superior to all other races. (superior in terms of adaptation to "the machine of industrial society" not actual superiority).

How should the world respond to a race living side by side to other races clearly inferior, and no longer close enough to even be deniable?

MGTOW demands that a woman bring something to the table. They look after their own needs first instead of being a slave to someone else. They don't allow their hormones to dictate how they should take care of themselves.

Akin to the British Monarchy, the power that the pope wields today is mostly symbolic, rather than real. While the papacy itself is still influential in the lives of many Catholics, I don't think the papacy of today is anywhere near as powerful/influential as it was during the middle ages. For example: 

• The popes of the middle ages were the sole religious leaders of Western Europe. Literally everyone in Western Europe in the middle ages acknowledged the pope as their spiritual leader. While the papacy today presides over 1.2 billion Catholics (which is more people than lived in the world at any point in the middle ages), the percentage of Christians who follow the pope is way lower than it was before the Protestant Reformation.
  
• The popes of the middle ages wielded a significant amount of power, to the point where even kings would cower before them. They frequently played power politics, and the threat of ex-communication scared even the boldest and most defiant leaders into obeying them. Pope Francis doesn't wield nearly as much power, and outside of the Vatican, he doesn't have the power to directly affect policies.
  
• The popes of the middle ages could raise an army of tens of thousands to fight his holy wars. Pope Francis would have a very difficult time doing this. 
  
• The papacy was so sought after, and the power that came with it so great, that there would often be rival claimants ("anti-popes") challenging the pope's position. There hasn't been such a thing since 1450.
  

Current pope, or historical?

The subject is not concerned with "influence" though is it?     It is about P_O_W_E_R.  Stop moving the goalposts and the trying to build an argument about what you say instead of what the OP ACTUALLY and clearly states.

 "Some 22 percent of the world’s population is Muslim today, and 85 percent of all Muslims are Sunnis, while 13 percent are Shias". 15.6 billion Muslims. That is a lot of people that can be influenced with a simple the nod of the head and a wave of the hand.  Even if one says  only  a "tiny minority"  follows the Islamic ideology ` religiously'.  

 Have you forgotten "the power" shown and the "influence" displayed  by the Ayatollah  over a simple novel. He stirred the Islamic world and Muslims around the world into a frenzy and most of the ignorant Muslims of the east couldn't even read never mind read English.   Over a book!!! Now that is power!

influence is power. If you have the ability to get people to do things, that is power. 

Only if the Pope is the vicar of himself. Last I checked... nope.

he's a billionaire, which makes him the richest president, and he's a president which is often called the most powerful person in the world, and he's in charge of the us militiary, which is bigger than the next ten militaries combined along with almost the most nukes in the world second only slightly to russia. also the usa economy was the strongest it had ever been under trump. of course, putin has access to more wealth that is hidden and russia is a strong country, just not as strong as the usa, so putin is only a close second. also, this is all based on just what we know, as as of now we dont know if there are other living intelligent beings in the universe. 

is there a covid19 patent in that list of patents? i doubt it. just because covid19 evolves doesn't mean anything if all that is patented are past coronaviruses. what are you trying to prove if there's no covid19 patent?

just because there are a bunch of coronavirus patents in the past doesn't mean anything. for one, there are several types of corona viruses in existence, but the covid 19 isn't included and is what is important. 

i notice you can't find any credible sources to back up your conspiracy theories

Is that part of the conspiracy?

that even a half decent journalist out there can't put together what you've found and come out with it?

is the whole media establishment in on it?

If you could define exactly what you mean by ‘a conspiracy theory’, or ‘conspiracy thinking’ it would be extremely helpful.

The motive is certainly there for China to destabilize the US economy considering the policy changes over the last 3 years. However, the accounts from the now missing and presumed dead Chinese scientists say they were aware of the virus long before January.

forbes says the plandemic videos are bunk.

Forbes is a credible source, not just random internet riff raff

you be the judge of whether its credible, and we all can review your decision. 

From a bit of cursory research on viruses and lab-created viruses, the consensus seems to be the genetic markers of Covid19 seem to line up with natural viral instances and do not show the DNA markers of a lab-created virus. That's not to say a natural virus couldn't be released from a lab where it was being studied.

Hillary Clinton actually had the balls recently to repeat the phrase for her trained seals.

Planning the pandemic in advance would indicate a superlative ability to innovate, but, the facts are, no other country, per capita, has as many awarded patents, the scale of innovation, after all, as the United States. In fact, all other countries, combined, do not have the number of patents awarded to the United States. This was an idea conceived only after the crisis happened, much like Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a crisis go to waste."

do you have any credible sources that back up your views that this was a planned pandemic

are they just random videos and websites that you have for support?

Hello.

I think that we have a somewhat circular debate going on here.

I would suggest that answers to all these questions  can be found within previous discourse.

Why can't the gays be satisfied with a civil union?

Well.

Function dictates ability and therefore levels of achievement.

Nonetheless, just answer a question:

Do you think that money is  an integral part of society  or separate from society?

It's just interesting to see how  other discussions within this thread tend to disregard the human issue and solely focus upon the academic issues of monetarism. National debt and debt in general, seemingly become a mathematical and statistical  exercise rather than a social concern.

I personally cannot see how the perceived problem of debt can be addressed unless one also takes into account, perceptible social inequalities.

Nonetheless, I still hold that the monetary system mirrors human ability and therefore as such, is utilised as a stabilising and controlling mechanism that gives order and stability to society.

Sure, the EPI data was flawed. I'll buy that. But one of the criticisms of the EPI report is chiefly the point that I am trying to make. When we are concerning ourselves with non-supervisory and production jobs, there is a discrepancy between pay and productivity (1). The BLS data also showed this. Would this affect employment prospects? I would imagine so if the jobs in question are subject to this discrepancy.

State-sponsored vocational rehabilitation programs are far from detention centers. I don't know exactly what program you refer to when you describe homeless rehabilitation as such either. But, I think that we can agree that private enterprises would likely never want to create a holistic "homeless rehab" program to get people placed into jobs. The homeless can't pay for it. 

Don't underestimate the detriments of depression or anxiety. They cost employers (2) and are major predictors of gainful employment (3). The cost of depression alone is pegged to be $210 billion dollars per year (8). Employers worry about the cost of accommodating mentally ill people, cohesion with other coworkers, and absenteeism (4). Those with depression are often blamed for being unproductive when compared to their peers, too (4). 

There's also the issue of severity. Homeless people are more likely to be victimized by sexual predators and perpetrators of assault. These traumas tend to worsen mental health issues. A 2015 HUD study concluded that 25% of the homeless population had a severe mental illness using head counts from 2015 (or roughly 140,000 people) (5). Other studies tend to conclude that a higher proportion of the homeless population suffers from extreme mental illness.  My original post also shows that there were other barriers to employment too, such as incarceration and persistent stigma against homeless people. Image is also a problem. If someone showed up to an interview for any position, they would be expected to look somewhat presentable. Without showers or clean clothes, the homeless cannot meet this expectation 100% of the time.

The homeless population is aging and may not be suited to manual labor given the wear-and-tear of age and poverty that make them more prone to on-the-job accidents (6). Strapping young people are more likely to take these jobs and outperform their older counterparts. Plus, the homeless are precluded from the workforce for quite a few reasons that my original post highlighted and that I've already written above. These don't suddenly vanish because manual labor jobs have lower entry-level requirements than other sectors. Also, the homeless aren't competing with no-one. What about undocumented immigrants and penal labor? What about sheltered workshops that are allowed to pay their employees sub-minimum wages (and often no more than a few cents an hour) (7)?

Are purely un-subsidized profit-generating institutions going to spend their limited resources rehabilitating the homeless when there are plenty of other highly qualified candidates for jobs? Who will pay for these rehabilitative institutions if they do exist? The homeless? If the private companies are interested in rehabilitating the homeless, they would have already shown this support through their investment. 

I'll put it this way. I would not have been able to pay for higher education without Voc Rehab. A certain member of my family would have never landed a job without Voc Rehab's support, and he is now in the process of being promoted to a full-time position. Finding jobs in FL with a diagnosis is hard. I'll say that and no more. 

I don't know what specific laws would prevent companies from starting businesses that served the homeless besides the obvious fact that doing so would be economic suicide. There is no profit in providing services unless they are paid for, and the only way that can happen is through people's hard-earned dollars. I know of few homeless people who would be able to buy their way into these programs and eventually pay for a residence. This is the reason that the public sector is championing the rehabilitation movement, private businesses don't want a part in them, and that's not necessarily bad, but "thems the breaks." 

I hope I don't come off as disrespectful.

It's in sheet 37.

There's 90 jobs on the list.  They would need a good reason to reject all 90 jobs.

Employers have training programs for prospective employees already put in place.  If they don't have the skills for one job, then they try a different job.  There's 90 jobs on the list.  They'll find something that they like.

It leads to both.  If you work for a nuclear power plant for instance, as the population triples, the energy demands triple as well.

As that happens, the number of people who need to manage the energy supply also needs to triple.

This is explained by the fact that the US population is growing, but unemployment is going down.

If the US had 1 billion people in it, it's population density would be around 100 people per km2.  To put that into perspective, the population density of the UK is roughly 3x this.  The UK isn't exactly the most crowded place in the world, and America's population density would still be a third of that.

With the exception of federal employees, how?

If your middle class or rich, your saving more than 10% probably.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit#gid=320988619 shows how the poor can afford this (B114).

Your plan is targeting the poor, who typically have a 10% debt-to-savings ratio. Will you pay for classes that teach them about saving? Furthermore, what the specific effect of a 10% savings rate in your plan?

Whoever had the stock to begin with.  The poor, if they pursue my plan would get enough money from their jobs to buy stock.

I said $60,000 per year.  Given that they are working 3 months, every homeless liberator gets $15,000 for helping out 100 homeless people.

15000* 5000 (the number of liberators) = 75 million.  For the federal government, this is not expensive; about 25 cents per taxpayer.

My calculation assumes that the homeless person gets hooked up with a job opportunity on the first day, they take their time with the courses, all with the government taking a hands off approach to the person's progress out of poverty except for asking questions if they get stuck on the way, then a homeless liberator helps them out with advice and potentially whatever they need.  It only takes one day to sign up for a course, and then the homeless person does pretty much the rest.

Sales tax and capitol gains tax.  These taxes are harder to dodge for immigrants and rich people, and given that our population would skyrocket with open borders, we can have less taxes but more government revenue because there would be more salaries paying taxes to the government.

No because the poor would get better jobs that increase their overall salary.  Some of the money they would spend on better nesseseties, some they would spend on luxuries, some on investments.  These all would get taxed one way or another.  Some they save, but there's more money overall in their checkbooks so they can do more things with it.

You assume that the inseparable are separable. 

That is to say, you suggest that values are separate to function.

I would suggest that function dictates values.

Just as function dictates your desire to procreate with the large breasted woman.

Maybe, but productivity rarely matches with wages. Often, people are paid less than their total worth to company's bottom line (1) (2). In fact, the productivity-wage gap is growing, not shrinking (2). In theory, companies would compensate their employees in equal measure to their usefulness, but this isn't always the case.

Also, how would these companies that rehabilitate the homeless make profit? Would they take a portion of their clientele's paycheck to pay for services to treat mental illnesses and drug addiction which often holds people back from getting jobs? How about job placement and shadowing opportunities?

Non-profit organizations might be able to help, but do we have enough of these social organizations to aid those who are homeless? Also, businesses leverage their money and influence to keep laws that target homeless people on the books (3). Why would they want to help the homeless?

In reality, there are probably a bevy of services that could help homeless people, for a price. If the homeless are unable to pay for it, then government involvement in some respect, be it federal, state, or municipal, might be called for. 

I've heard the argument that perhaps solving homelessness should not be a moral imperative for the US, and maybe that's true

If we want to though, there is more to do than simply relegate this to the private businesses with no oversight. Clearly, if it were profitable, profitable and effective startups would already be addressing homelessness, right? 

I do. I wouldn't have asked other wise.  Any way. I googled this . just tell me if this is what you believe Luciferianism to be. Just a yes or no will do.

Fair, but I don't think necessarily that private institutions, unless being nudged vigorously by the government, will want to rehabilitate homeless people so they can work. There isn't too much profit in that. 

Genetically defined natural ability defines the formation and structure of natural social hierarchy.

And obviously altruism can be achieved "among a species" hence the development of the word altruism, but this is not representative of the human species as a whole

Thank you for clarifying, I do agree. Methinks a better approach would involve public-private partnerships. Vocational rehabilitation programs are also useful (as someone who uses it, I can say this from personal experience, but quality of service differs widely across states and counselors.) While I hate to admit it, a granular, piecemeal approach might be the best option to aid the homeless. Since monetary allocations to help the homeless are often determined by self-reported data, it might be time to rectify issues in stat collecting too. I just don't think a swathing system could possibly account for everything. A series of granular, piecemeal reforms might be preferable.

Explain in as few words as possible what   "   Luciferianism " is?  

Maybe she is a pagan, Ragnar, was a viking who worshiped Thor and Odin.  One god is as good as another. 

I don't think its necessarily wrong to allow the homeless to seek jobs or receive training. I don't think that any employer would ever put them in a position that pays substantially though, so displacing high-wage labor might not be as big a problem (although I think you posed that as a hypothetical), but it is something to consider (especially given the inverse relationship between full employment and inflation, but that is another issue entirely). I'm not saying that the plan isn't ambitious, in fact, that might be the downfall of it. It doesn't take into effect numerous factors playing into employment or the unique situation the homeless find themselves in. In fact, as much as the intention is to save money, I think that expanding programs to employ every single homeless person would not be offset by eliminating SNAP. Homeless employment is something that we should strive for, but its not as simple as portrayed. 

So yeah, I concur. 

In very simple terms and disregarding the evolved complexities of the system:

The hierarchy of ability is what really orders social structure and money has become the established system we use to represent this, both nationally and individually.

Altruism and unhindered cooperation is the only real alternative and given human nature and the natural hierarchy of ability,  it is highly unlikely that such a system would ever be workable.

The number of jobs is not unlimited (as Athias has already pointed out) and the kicker is that we don't know how many people are actually homeless. Sure, we can make estimates, but the actual number of people who do not have permanent dwellings is a difficult number to calculate because of numerous complicating factors including transience and faulty "counts" of homeless that usually take place in the last ten days in January done by scant volunteers, when the homeless try to seek temporary abodes to get out of the cold weather (10). HUD, until recently,  did not even include a rural designation in its data collection, which means plenty of rural, homeless people are likely not reported (10). Utah, a state that declared that there was "no more homelessness in the state" in 2015 recently had to rectify their statement, because, wouldn't you believe it, the state now struggles to provide enough temporary shelter for the homeless in their state (11). 

So, we don't know really how many people are homeless, so how are we to determine if the economy has generated enough jobs that a homeless person could feasibly fill given the bevy of factors that play into whether a homeless person gets a job? More to the point, while some jobs don't necessarily require degrees, won't these better educated Americans be in direct competition with the homeless? Who do you think they are going to hire, someone with an Associate's degree, or someone who shows up to a job interview who looks like they're homeless, and outright admit they don't have a permanent address? This is not to paint an unfavorable portrait of those that are less fortunate, its with great serendipity that so many can afford to live comfortably in this country, and those that fall through the cracks are no less deserving of a comfortable life (especially if they are precluded form the job market for factors that they cannot account for.)

I would hire people to go to homeless people and show them this sheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit#gid=320988619

in order to get them out of poverty.

The # of jobs I don't think is unlimited, but it easily would increase with the increase in population.  As our population triples, the demand for every job would triple as well, so things cancel out.

Up to them, but the average person saves 10% of their earnings and spends and invests the rest.  Some more, some less.  

Up to the individual.  Anytime they sell the stock, they pay the capitol gains tax, which isin't much.

I'd say $60,000 per year is a fair salary.  It's not going to be expensive.

There are 500,000 homeless people in the US.  5000 homeless rescuers (maybe I should pick a better term), each getting 1 homeless person out of poverty per day should take 100 days, or basically 3 months to do.

It's to show people that look at the sheet that there would be no income tax in my plan.  A sales tax and a capitol gains tax is all that is necessary.