AOC Flunks Economics 101

[danielpalos]

Yes, literally simply Because every paying Job should pay more than that "minimum wage".

That doesn't relate. If you're not even bothering to look for a job, it doesn't matter what the MW is. You do know, don't you, that you're just pulling unrelated crap out and flinging it, hoping something relevant will emerge?

Envy the Poor? Why do you Care. Being Poor under Capitalism is the voluntary punishment.

Refusing to look for a job is a cause of being poor, not a result. You might as well give it up, because you are yammering about the poor, not I. This far, nothing you've pulled out has helped your cause.

You're trying to talk sense to the board's leading economic illiterate.

I know, it's kind of fun watching him chase his own tail around the May Pole.

says you right wingers; why are right wingers, always so Wrong?

 

[hadit]

When you get laid off, looking for a job qualifies you for unemployment compensation, but you knew that because I told you already. Like I've pointed out many times, you like to pretend you should get UC without bothering to look for work.

The law is employment at the will of either party. Why "steal from the Poor" and blame the Poor.

And you're attempting to make that case again. You never, and I mean never, learn. You're not even a good bit, which tries to learn. You just recycle the same things over and over.

Tell you what, cite the actual "at will" unemployment law that you're think should be applied to wastoids smoking pot in the basement all day. Start there if you want to be taken seriously. Quote the text in context that you think means you should get paid.

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

 

[Aponi]

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

Marc Thiessen: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an economic illiterate -- And that's bad news for America

"The left complains that conservatives are "obsessing" over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Well, there is a reason for that: Ocasio-Cortez is driving the agenda of today's Democratic Party -- and her economic illiteracy is dangerous.

Case in point: Last week, Ocasio-Cortez celebrated the tanking of a deal negotiated by her fellow Democrats in which Amazonpromised to build a new headquarters in Long Island City, New York, right next to her congressional district. Amazon's departure cost the city between 25,000 and 40,000 new jobs. Forget the tech workers whom Amazon would have employed. Gone are all the unionized construction jobs to build the headquarters, as well as thousands of jobs created by all the small businesses -- restaurants, bodegas, dry cleaners and food carts -- that were preparing to open or expand to serve Amazon employees. They are devastated by Amazon's withdrawal.

Ocasio-Cortez was not disturbed at all. "We were subsidizing those jobs," she said. "Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that amount of money if we wanted to."

No, you can't. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams. The subsidies to Amazon were tax incentives, not cash payouts. It is Amazon's money, which New York agreed to make tax-exempt, so the company would invest it in building its new headquarters, hiring new workers and generating tens of billions in new tax revenue."

You can't fix her Socialist type of 'stupid'.

.

Shes is a moron

 

[Aponi]

and shes not only a moron but anti american

 

[danielpalos]

The law is employment at the will of either party. Why "steal from the Poor" and blame the Poor.

And you're attempting to make that case again. You never, and I mean never, learn. You're not even a good bit, which tries to learn. You just recycle the same things over and over.

Tell you what, cite the actual "at will" unemployment law that you're think should be applied to wastoids smoking pot in the basement all day. Start there if you want to be taken seriously. Quote the text in context that you think means you should get paid.

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

 

[easyt65]

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

No, there is no wage-slavery IN WRITING. In practice, yes, In writing, no.

Funny how snowflakes / Democrats call giving people of wealth / companies tax breaks (taking less of THEIR own money) and in return those people of wealth create / start new businesses that provide jobs and / or bring their factories back to the US where they create thousands of jobs for people 'stealing from the poor'.

 

[danielpalos]

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

No, there is no wage-slavery IN WRITING. In practice, yes, In writing, no.

Funny how snowflakes / Democrats call giving people of wealth / companies tax breaks (taking less of THEIR own money) and in return those people of wealth create / start new businesses that provide jobs and / or bring their factories back to the US where they create thousands of jobs for people 'stealing from the poor'.

it isn't that. it is about a lack of equal protection of the law and the right wing calling the Poor, lazy.

 

[easyt65]

it isn't that. it is about a lack of equal protection of the law and the right wing calling the Poor, lazy.

Interesting...

Leftists get caught breaking the law, screwing the poor out of scholarships - much like Pocahontas stole a scholarship from a native American - and snowflakes talk about 'equal protection under the law' and attack the 'right wing'...

 

[hadit]

And you're attempting to make that case again. You never, and I mean never, learn. You're not even a good bit, which tries to learn. You just recycle the same things over and over.

Tell you what, cite the actual "at will" unemployment law that you're think should be applied to wastoids smoking pot in the basement all day. Start there if you want to be taken seriously. Quote the text in context that you think means you should get paid.

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

Quote the text of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

Quote the text of the law.

it was too complicated for you last time i posted it.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."[6]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[hadit]

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

Quote the text of the law.

it was too complicated for you last time i posted it.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."[6]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

First, that's not the text of a law. Second, that backs up what I'm saying, that "at-will" means that you can quit when you want and they can fire you when they want. Third,I said explain how "at-will" means you should get paid to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot instead of looking for work. What you quoted says nothing about that.

So no, there's no complexity involved.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

Quote the text of the law.

it was too complicated for you last time i posted it.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."[6]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

First, that's not the text of a law. Second, that backs up what I'm saying, that "at-will" means that you can quit when you want and they can fire you when they want. Third,I said explain how "at-will" means you should get paid to stay in Mom's basement smoking pot instead of looking for work. What you quoted says nothing about that.

So no, there's no complexity involved.

because employment is at-will not for-cause. otherwise, EDD should be required to prove for-Cause employment to deny or disparage benefits.

 

[Aponi]

And you're attempting to make that case again. You never, and I mean never, learn. You're not even a good bit, which tries to learn. You just recycle the same things over and over.

Tell you what, cite the actual "at will" unemployment law that you're think should be applied to wastoids smoking pot in the basement all day. Start there if you want to be taken seriously. Quote the text in context that you think means you should get paid.

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

How is the right wing stealing from the poor tell us all about it dumbass

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

How is the right wing stealing from the poor tell us all about it dumbass

When you don't give him money to sit in his Mom's basement and smoke weed, you're stealing from him.

 

[danielpalos]

Pick any State law regarding employment at will you want and the federal doctrine.

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

How is the right wing stealing from the poor tell us all about it dumbass

don't believe in equal protection of the law for the Poor?

 

[danielpalos]

I said cite the text and explain how in means you get paid to stay in the basement smoking pot.

Employment is at the will of either party. Prove me wrong. You can quit anytime you want.

Prove your point. I told you how. I've also told you what "at-will" employment is. You did not listen, and that's on you.

Now quote the text of the law in context and tell me how it means you should get a paycheck for staying in Mom's basement smoking pot all day.

You are wrong. There is no wage-slavery in writing. Employment is at the will of either party. The right wing has no problems "stealing from the Poor" to help Richest get richer.

How is the right wing stealing from the poor tell us all about it dumbass

When you don't give him money to sit in his Mom's basement and smoke weed, you're stealing from him.

or, when you criminalize drugs without that power being delegated.