$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

 

[hadit]

Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?

No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".

Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?

Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.

Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?

The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?

There is nothing, at-will about means testing. You simply appeal to ignorance with false analogies.

The two are not related in the real world, only in your head are they related. UC is means tested as it should be.

Simply because a right winger says so? You need the "gospel Truth" for that.

Nope, because no one other than you has ever said so. IOW, YOU need the "gospel Truth" for that. You've presented nothing other than your fantasy that it just has to be true because you really want it to be. UC is legally means tested, end of sentence.

 

[hadit]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

 

[danielpalos]

Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?

No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".

Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?

Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.

Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?

The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?

There is nothing, at-will about means testing. You simply appeal to ignorance with false analogies.

The two are not related in the real world, only in your head are they related. UC is means tested as it should be.

Simply because a right winger says so? You need the "gospel Truth" for that.

Nope, because no one other than you has ever said so. IOW, YOU need the "gospel Truth" for that. You've presented nothing other than your fantasy that it just has to be true because you really want it to be. UC is legally means tested, end of sentence.

I don't appeal to ignorance of the law; not quite the "gospel Truth" but good enough for full faith and credit purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raising wages causes INFLATION.

Technically, raising wages could cause higher prices, but..........

"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output" Milton Friedman

 

[hadit]

Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?

No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".

Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?

Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.

Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?

The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?

There is nothing, at-will about means testing. You simply appeal to ignorance with false analogies.

The two are not related in the real world, only in your head are they related. UC is means tested as it should be.

Simply because a right winger says so? You need the "gospel Truth" for that.

Nope, because no one other than you has ever said so. IOW, YOU need the "gospel Truth" for that. You've presented nothing other than your fantasy that it just has to be true because you really want it to be. UC is legally means tested, end of sentence.

I don't appeal to ignorance of the law; not quite the "gospel Truth" but good enough for full faith and credit purposes.

Are you trying to say that all of the lawyers who reviewed UC law, looking for ways to challenge it (because that's what lawyers do, hoping for a big day in court) are ignorant of the law because they don't believe what you think you've discovered? Are you trying to say the legislators that wrote the law and had lawyers review it for constitutionality (because they have to make sure what they put their name to will pass scrutiny) are ignorant of the law? IOW, are you trying to say that all of these legal minds who know the law better than you ever could hope to know it are ignorant of the law?

Because that's certainly what it sounds like. You're pretending to be a legal scholar of the top most caliber, so brilliant that you've discovered a linkage in the law that not only no one else could find, but only exists in ONE area of the law, NOWHERE else.

 

[hadit]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you trying to say that all of the lawyers who reviewed UC law, looking for ways to challenge it

Which lawyers have done that?

 

[danielpalos]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.

Not at all. It is that co-equal branch known as the judiciary that has the judicial power of the State or the United States.

 

[RobbinBobbin]

I totally agree with you. I think that all jobs should be valuable enough to exist in our country. People should always do useful things at our society or just earn a lot of money!

 

[hadit]

Are you trying to say that all of the lawyers who reviewed UC law, looking for ways to challenge it

Which lawyers have done that?

Lawyers looking to be the one that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a law. Lawyers that were hired by employers hoping to find a way to avoid paying the extra taxes.

 

[hadit]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.

Not at all. It is that co-equal branch known as the judiciary that has the judicial power of the State or the United States.

Right, and the judiciary has NEVER found UC law to unconstitutionally exclude those who never held a job and never intend to, or who just walk off a job because they don't want to work any more. Apparently, you hope that someday if you just wish hard enough, it will because your brilliant legal mind has found something no one else in the world knows exists.

See, one the one hand you champion the judiciary as the arbiter of what the law says and means, but OTOH, you insist you know better than the entire judiciary because they haven't found for your pet fantasy.

 

[Supposn]

And this is according to the Far Left CBO. ...

Polishprince, I suppose you may be among those paranoids believing USA’s majority of voters and majority of Electoral College members they elected, did not legally (and in proper, conventional manner) chose not to re-elect Donald Trump.
That would explain your paranoic determining the U.S. Congressional Budget Office to be a “far left” part of our federal government’s legislative branch.

The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Are you trying to say that all of the lawyers who reviewed UC law, looking for ways to challenge it

Which lawyers have done that?

Lawyers looking to be the one that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a law. Lawyers that were hired by employers hoping to find a way to avoid paying the extra taxes.

Which ones? Link?

 

[danielpalos]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.

Not at all. It is that co-equal branch known as the judiciary that has the judicial power of the State or the United States.

Right, and the judiciary has NEVER found UC law to unconstitutionally exclude those who never held a job and never intend to, or who just walk off a job because they don't want to work any more. Apparently, you hope that someday if you just wish hard enough, it will because your brilliant legal mind has found something no one else in the world knows exists.

See, one the one hand you champion the judiciary as the arbiter of what the law says and means, but OTOH, you insist you know better than the entire judiciary because they haven't found for your pet fantasy.

You are not the judicature. It really is that simple.

 

[hadit]

Are you trying to say that all of the lawyers who reviewed UC law, looking for ways to challenge it

Which lawyers have done that?

Lawyers looking to be the one that successfully challenged the constitutionality of a law. Lawyers that were hired by employers hoping to find a way to avoid paying the extra taxes.

Which ones? Link?

Right after you produce all the lawyers and judges who agree with you.

 

[hadit]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.

Not at all. It is that co-equal branch known as the judiciary that has the judicial power of the State or the United States.

Right, and the judiciary has NEVER found UC law to unconstitutionally exclude those who never held a job and never intend to, or who just walk off a job because they don't want to work any more. Apparently, you hope that someday if you just wish hard enough, it will because your brilliant legal mind has found something no one else in the world knows exists.

See, one the one hand you champion the judiciary as the arbiter of what the law says and means, but OTOH, you insist you know better than the entire judiciary because they haven't found for your pet fantasy.

You are not the judicature. It really is that simple.

Yet my argument is for reality as it is, and the judiciary agrees with me. Yours is for what you wish it would be, not what it is. So, why is it again that you think your legal expertise is so much greater than the entire judiciary's?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And this is according to the Far Left CBO. ...

Polishprince, I suppose you may be among those paranoids believing USA’s majority of voters and majority of Electoral College members they elected, did not legally (and in proper, conventional manner) chose not to re-elect Donald Trump.
That would explain your paranoic determining the U.S. Congressional Budget Office to be a “far left” part of our federal government’s legislative branch.

The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.
Respectfully, Supposn

The CBO’s published projections for the U.S. House’s passed “Raise the Wage” bill describes a proposal that’s net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

Where does the CBO say that higher rates of joblessness, reduced business income, higher prices, reduced GDP, reduced capital stock and reduced total real family income is "net beneficial to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing"?

Anywhere?

 

[danielpalos]

Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.

Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.

Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.

Unsubstantiated?

When was the last bum payment you received?

Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.

And where are they now?

How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.

And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.

Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.

No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.

Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.

IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.

I don't need to appeal to any majority, unlike fantastical and literally incredible, right wingers.

But you do need to have a legal opinion that backs you up, since you're the only one who ever says this, and you don't have one.

See, here's where you fail, big time. First you try to claim that only some people disagree with you. That means that there are a lot who agree with you. Then, when you can't produce any, you claim you don't care about being in a majority. You don't have to be in the majority, you just have to present a sound legal opinion that supports your ridiculous claim, and you can't do it.

I have a First Amendment and State equivalents. I only need to not appeal to ignorance of the law.

So do you have anyone who agrees with you or not? It sounds an awful lot like you want to be the sole arbiter of what a law means, no matter what it says.

Not at all. It is that co-equal branch known as the judiciary that has the judicial power of the State or the United States.

Right, and the judiciary has NEVER found UC law to unconstitutionally exclude those who never held a job and never intend to, or who just walk off a job because they don't want to work any more. Apparently, you hope that someday if you just wish hard enough, it will because your brilliant legal mind has found something no one else in the world knows exists.

See, one the one hand you champion the judiciary as the arbiter of what the law says and means, but OTOH, you insist you know better than the entire judiciary because they haven't found for your pet fantasy.

You are not the judicature. It really is that simple.

Yet my argument is for reality as it is, and the judiciary agrees with me. Yours is for what you wish it would be, not what it is. So, why is it again that you think your legal expertise is so much greater than the entire judiciary's?

The judiciary doesn't disagree with me. It has to go before a judge first.