$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[danielpalos]

Hadit, I don’t know if Daniel Palos did or didn’t advocate doubling the federal minimum wage rate overnight. If he did so, why are you responding to another of his more outrageous opinions?
Responding to him lends credence to others falsely contending any credible participants of political or economic discussions are seriously advocating other than gradual increases of the federal minimum wage rate.
Respectfully, Supposn

Hadit, Daniel Palos continues advocating his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I’m unaware of any government, or credible government official, or economist that are or are not credible, ever having been in concurrence with Daniel Palos’s unique concept.
If it exists, it’s must only be rarely found among those within lunatic fringes of political or economic opinion spectrums’ left or right ends.

When I can no longer tolerate that nonsense, I set my group membership account to ignore all Daniel Palos’s posts.
Respectfully, Supposn

I am claiming tax considerations can make such a large wage hike, less shocking to the private sector.

 

[Supposn]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

 

[hadit]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

The express unequal protection of our at-will employment laws does that. It is unConstitutional on its face.

Then why has it never been successfully challenged? If it is so obviously unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. See, the reality is that there is no linkage between the two, it only exists in your mind.

 

[hadit]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

 

[danielpalos]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

The express unequal protection of our at-will employment laws does that. It is unConstitutional on its face.

Then why has it never been successfully challenged? If it is so obviously unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. See, the reality is that there is no linkage between the two, it only exists in your mind.

How many times has it been brought before the Courts? Dred Scott was obviously unConstitutional and so were black codes, yet they still happened. All you have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

 

[hadit]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

The express unequal protection of our at-will employment laws does that. It is unConstitutional on its face.

Then why has it never been successfully challenged? If it is so obviously unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. See, the reality is that there is no linkage between the two, it only exists in your mind.

How many times has it been brought before the Courts? Dred Scott was obviously unConstitutional and so were black codes, yet they still happened. All you have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

They happened and they were overturned. UC hasn't even been challenged. It's a means tested program that temporarily serves a narrow slice of the population. The general population is not taxed to pay for it. It denies no one anything.

 

[hadit]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

The express unequal protection of our at-will employment laws does that. It is unConstitutional on its face.

Then why has it never been successfully challenged? If it is so obviously unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. See, the reality is that there is no linkage between the two, it only exists in your mind.

How many times has it been brought before the Courts? Dred Scott was obviously unConstitutional and so were black codes, yet they still happened. All you have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

They happened and they were overturned. UC hasn't even been challenged. It's a means tested program that temporarily serves a narrow slice of the population. The general population is not taxed to pay for it. It denies no one anything.

How long did it take? And, they were overturned eventually.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

 

[hadit]

Then no lawyer has ever attempted to take it to court, no company has ever tried to get it overturned. That should tell you that you're chasing imaginary things. Give it up, you're wrong. Better yet, since you're so doggedly convinced, get a lawyer and take it to court yourself. Surely you have right on your side, correct?

Not true at all under our form of Capitalism where rich guys can simply and merely afford enough justice to file scores of frivolous suits only to them dismissed for having nothing but "legal fallacy".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with you believing so strongly that the law is not being applied equally. If you really believed it wasn't and that you were right, you should be able to walk into court and come out with a favorable ruling with no problem. Why don't you? You don't because you know that you're making it all up in your head and you WISH it were that way, but it's just not that way.

Because I am not rich or I would have simply hired an attorney to initiate a class action. Capitalism can be wonderful when one has enough capital.

I expect to win any ruling regarding this concept. I have already won all of the arguments on political forums.

No, you haven't. All you have managed to do is state your fantasy, then repeat your fantasy ad nauseum. Truly, it is to hurl. You have failed to explain how UC being means tested is unequal protection of the law while qualifying for Medicaid is not. You have failed to find one legal scholar who has expressed an opinion supporting your fantasy. You have failed to acknowledge how UC would have to fundamentally change in order to cover everyone under the sun who has not and will not hold a job. You can't articulate how changing UC to do what you want would not simply be creating another massive welfare program. You pretend that human nature no longer applies and miraculously people will go to school and back to work instead of doing nothing and living off $28/hr. In short, you have won nothing except in your own mind.

And the pigeon goes around the board again.

That is just You claiming what you do. You can't explain how any State or Agency of a State can enact any laws or rules which have the effect of denying or disparaging equal protection of the laws. The law is employment at the Will of Either party not just one party for any benefits administered by the State for the general welfare.

Yes I absolutely can do that, and I have many times. I have pointed out to you multiple examples of laws that do not apply equally to all people because they are specifically written to apply only to a subset of people. You have completely ignored those examples and pretend they do not exist because you cannot counter them.

Means tested laws exist everywhere. I cannot legally be on a sidewalk if I am sitting in a car, but everyone else who is walking can be. I cannot collect Social Security if I am too young while everyone else who is old enough can. Under your standard, these are unequal protection of the law. In fact, you ARE unequally applying the law because you want only ONE law to be expanded to cover those it expressly does not while you want all the other ones to remain exclusive, as they current are.

You really didn't think this through very well, did you?

means nothing since you only have false analogies but believe you must be Right simply because you are on the right wing.

Employment at the will of either party means no State or Agency of a State can deny or disparage that right for any benefits administered by the State.

Why are you insisting that only UC law be treated this way when means testing is in virtually every law there is? If it is legitimate for the state to deny me food stamps because I make too much money, it is legitimate for the state to deny you UC payments because you didn't just get laid off from a job.

Proof, right wingers don't actual care about express law; they prefer to "hate on the less fortunate" and practice hypocrisy?

Or, do you still simply not understand the concept?

Means tested welfare is not about at-will employment.

The express law states that you cannot collect UC except for a period of time after you've been laid off from a job. What part of that is unclear in your mind? At-will employment is not about UC, no matter how many times you repeat that it is. You are the only one who believes it.

The express unequal protection of our at-will employment laws does that. It is unConstitutional on its face.

Then why has it never been successfully challenged? If it is so obviously unconstitutional it would have been overturned by now. See, the reality is that there is no linkage between the two, it only exists in your mind.

How many times has it been brought before the Courts? Dred Scott was obviously unConstitutional and so were black codes, yet they still happened. All you have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

They happened and they were overturned. UC hasn't even been challenged. It's a means tested program that temporarily serves a narrow slice of the population. The general population is not taxed to pay for it. It denies no one anything.

How long did it take? And, they were overturned eventually.

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

 

[hadit]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." And that right there blows your case out of the water because UC is granted on the same terms to all citizens. Face it, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. You acting like the state is forcing you to continue working because they won't pay you to quit. That's an INCENTIVE to keep working, but you are not PREVENTED from quitting. Therefore, there is NO case to be made that there is a legal requirement to continue working. None.

But please do try to convince me that there is a legal requirement that you continue in a job when you don't want to.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." And that right there blows your case out of the water because UC is granted on the same terms to all citizens. Face it, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. You acting like the state is forcing you to continue working because they won't pay you to quit. That's an INCENTIVE to keep working, but you are not PREVENTED from quitting. Therefore, there is NO case to be made that there is a legal requirement to continue working. None.

But please do try to convince me that there is a legal requirement that you continue in a job when you don't want to.

Not at all. You simply ignore the premise and the law. Employers don't need good cause to fire an employee or suffer some legal liability. There is no legal basis to require good cause for an employee to quit in an at-will employment or suffer some legal liability. It is unequal protection of the law and is a privilege and immunity that is not granted on the same basis to all citizens.

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

 

[hadit]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." And that right there blows your case out of the water because UC is granted on the same terms to all citizens. Face it, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. You acting like the state is forcing you to continue working because they won't pay you to quit. That's an INCENTIVE to keep working, but you are not PREVENTED from quitting. Therefore, there is NO case to be made that there is a legal requirement to continue working. None.

But please do try to convince me that there is a legal requirement that you continue in a job when you don't want to.

Not at all. You simply ignore the premise and the law. Employers don't need good cause to fire an employee or suffer some legal liability. There is no legal basis to require good cause for an employee to quit in an at-will employment or suffer some legal liability. It is unequal protection of the law and is a privilege and immunity that is not granted on the same basis to all citizens.

Like I said, you're not prevented from quitting a job, plain and simple. In an at-will state you and all citizens are equally allowed the option to quit a job. You haven't given ANY legal basis for that to be false.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel Palos has yet again posted with regard to his unique idea of unemployment benefits entitlement for those who unjustifiably choose to be unemployed.
I yet again cannot tolerate that nonsense and I again set my group membership account to ignore all further Daniel Palos posts. Respectfully, Supposn

Unjustifiable only if you don't believe in equal protection of the laws. Valid arguments are much to be preferred to "self-censorship" (unless you are on the right wing).

UC is means tested, so are Medicaid and food stamps, yet you don't complain about them being unequal protection. Be consistent.

Nope; not means tested at all. Employment testing is not the same as means testing, and earned income for benefit amount is not the same as means testing for benefits.

So you continue to say but without showing why it is true. You can't get food stamps if you're working and making more than a certain amount. You can't get UC payments unless you were working on a job and got laid off through no fault of your own. You can say they're different, but they're not. UC doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or belief, therefore you have a very difficult road to convince anyone outside your own mind that UC law is unconstitutional.

Because you are confusing the basic premise of the two. Welfare is a privilege and immunity granted by the legislature for the general welfare. Unemployment compensation is an entitlement because of equal protection of the law regarding employment at-will in an at-will employment State.

Welfare benefits are subject to means testing and based on this clause: A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2019, the poverty level for a family of four was $25,750.--https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20major%20U.S.,EITC)%2C%20and%20housing%20assistance.

All you need for unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is be unemployed since employment is at the will of either party and the equal protection clause.

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." And that right there blows your case out of the water because UC is granted on the same terms to all citizens. Face it, you don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. You acting like the state is forcing you to continue working because they won't pay you to quit. That's an INCENTIVE to keep working, but you are not PREVENTED from quitting. Therefore, there is NO case to be made that there is a legal requirement to continue working. None.

But please do try to convince me that there is a legal requirement that you continue in a job when you don't want to.

Not at all. You simply ignore the premise and the law. Employers don't need good cause to fire an employee or suffer some legal liability. There is no legal basis to require good cause for an employee to quit in an at-will employment or suffer some legal liability. It is unequal protection of the law and is a privilege and immunity that is not granted on the same basis to all citizens.

Like I said, you're not prevented from quitting a job, plain and simple. In an at-will state you and all citizens are equally allowed the option to quit a job. You haven't given ANY legal basis for that to be false.

Yes, persons are prevented economically from simply quitting a job. There is no basis to have any laws which have the effect of denying or disparaging that legal right by any (Agency of any) State by economic means.

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

Then you should be able to see the difference between a law that treated people as second class citizens because of skin color (unequal protection) and one that supports workers laid off from a job (equal protection).